Back in the (realistic) USSA

[John Wilson]

Having read the (unrealistic) book by that name, I'd like to project a
more realistic scenario for the POD of Socialist revolution in the USA
in 1917 and the Tsars remaining in power in Capitalist Russia:

1917 - Socialist revoultion takes the United States by Storm.
Eugene V. Debs, General Secretary of the Socialist Party, becomes
President-for-Life of the United Socialist States of America, or USSA
for short.

1918 - USSA troops withdraw from Europe (note: this isn't just
to parallel Brest-Livostk in OTL; the Socialists *were* against the
war.)

1919 - World War I finally winds down to a halt with *no one*
winning. All countries agree to "pretend it never happened" and go
back to their pre- 1914 borders, with the forms of government thay had
before 1914 (thus preserving monarchy as the dominant form of
government in Europe).

1920 to 1941 - Europe plods along, slowly rebuilding. Fascism
doesn't arise, since no nation's feelings were particularly hurt by
the war. Everyone suffered equally and everyone realized it was a
stupid mistake. There is no World War II (in Europe, anyway). An
architect named Adolf Hitler keeps Europe in stitches with his absurd
ideas for grandiose buildings....

The USSA itself experiences virtually zero immigration from
Europe after the Revolution, except for a few ideological fanatics.
Thus the population of Southern and Eastern Europeans is much lower
than OTL.

1941, 7 December - The Empire of Japan attacks the USSA at Pearl
Harbour, Territory of Hawaii. Capitalist Russia joins the USSA in war
against the Japanese, mainly in revenge for the events of 1905.

1945 - Russia and the USSA finally conquer Japan and divide it
in half. The USSA gets the two southernmost major islands, and Russia
gets the two northernmost islands. In a similar way, the Japanese
colony of Korea is divided at the 38th paralell, with capitalist
Russians controlling North Korea and the USSA maintaining South Korea
as well as South Japan as "allies in socialism".

1948 - The Zionist Movement finally gets its dream come true.
Madagascar becomes "New Israel, Homeland of the Jewish People". Russia
and the Polish-speaking parts of Germany become nearly devoid of Jews
by the time the year is over.

1958 - The Russians launch a spacecraft called "Sputnik" into
orbit around the world. Not to be outdone, the USSA starts its own
space program, with a goal of landing on the moon by 1970.

1961 - Tired of the "brain drain" (emigration of educated people)
to Canada and Mexico, the USSA builds a solid steel wall along both
borders, claiming the real purpose is to keep Mexicans and Canadians
out. However, the whole world knows better....

1969 - The USSA sends its first manned spacecraft, "Execution 1"
to the moon. Condemned prisoners are given the choice of making the
one-way trip in lieu of going to the electric chair.

1979 - The nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island melts down.
The USSA govenment claims "radiation is good for your health" but most
people don't believe it....

[President Chester A. Arthur]

Ooh, so many problems. It wouldn't be Eugene Debs, for one thing, it would be
Bill Haywood.

Pretend it never happened? That's not an attitude people had in this era.

No fascism? Of course there's fascism. Italy still had a king, remember? So
there are probably similar regimes in Italy and Germany and Russia...




----

"Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history."
Abraham Lincoln, 1862

[John Wilson]

Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Ooh, so many problems. It wouldn't be Eugene Debs, for one thing, it would be
Bill Haywood.
Pretend it never happened? That's not an attitude people had in this era.
No fascism? Of course there's fascism. Italy still had a king, remember? So
there are probably similar regimes in Italy and Germany and Russia...

Monarchies are hardly the same as fascism.... Although fascism
arose in three countries that were technically monarchies, the fascist
leaders were all prime ministers and the equivalent....

Post by President Chester A. Arthur
----
"Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history."
Abraham Lincoln, 1862

[Robert J. Gill]

Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Ooh, so many problems. It wouldn't be Eugene Debs,

for one thing, it would be Bill Haywood.



Also, I once heard someone else suggest that Byrne
and Newman should have substituted Earl Browder, as
an alternative for _Back in the USSA's_ Capone.

And the POD for the USSA story wasn't 1917, or 1912,
as Uchronia.net would have us believe; two pages into
the book, it mentions a brutal 1905 massacre in Chicago,
--by Federal troops--of "hunger marchers," led by someone
named "Father O'Shaugnessy," an event which was meant to
parallel OTL's "Bloody Sunday" Massacre in St. Petersburg,
by Tsarist soldiers. Does anyone know if there was any OTL
figure by that name in the early 20th Century? I can't seem
to find any information about him. Did the authors invent
him, or was he real?

[Nick Barlow]

Post by Robert J. Gill
And the POD for the USSA story wasn't 1917, or 1912,
as Uchronia.net would have us believe; two pages into
the book, it mentions a brutal 1905 massacre in Chicago,
--by Federal troops--of "hunger marchers," led by someone
named "Father O'Shaugnessy," an event which was meant to
parallel OTL's "Bloody Sunday" Massacre in St. Petersburg,
by Tsarist soldiers. Does anyone know if there was any OTL
figure by that name in the early 20th Century? I can't seem
to find any information about him. Did the authors invent
him, or was he real?

Given that Newman and Byrne like to mix fictional characters in with
the real ones, I'm wondering if he's perhaps a character from 'The
Jungle' - the dates would fit with that.

I think it's important to remember that Back In The USSA is as much
pop-culture fantasy as it is AH and their intentions are more
satirical than historical. There are problems with continuity (like
the moving Texan border mentioned elsewhere in the thread) and much of
the history doesn't make that much sense if you examine it closely.
For instance, if you assume the world as they've set it up, the
alt-Vietnam is more likely to take place in Central or South American
than Indochina, IMO. But when you've got the Likely Lads, Frank
Spencer, Just William et al starring in a British version of
Apocalypse Now, it seems churlish to complain...

'Hullo clouds, hullo sky, hullo pile of severed human heads.'

Nick

------------------
www.nickbarlow.com
------------------

[HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa]

Post by John Wilson
Having read the (unrealistic) book by that name, I'd like to project a
more realistic scenario for the POD of Socialist revolution in the USA
1917 - Socialist revoultion takes the United States by Storm.
Eugene V. Debs, General Secretary of the Socialist Party, becomes
President-for-Life of the United Socialist States of America, or USSA
for short.
1918 - USSA troops withdraw from Europe (note: this isn't just
to parallel Brest-Livostk in OTL; the Socialists *were* against the
war.)
1919 - World War I finally winds down to a halt with *no one*
winning. All countries agree to "pretend it never happened" and go
back to their pre- 1914 borders, with the forms of government thay had
before 1914 (thus preserving monarchy as the dominant form of
government in Europe).

Unrealistic.

With a PoD in 1917, even if the US troops leave Europe in 1918, The Entente
troops will be in Berlin in 1919, spearheaded by concentration of 1000s -
literally - of tanks.

Post by John Wilson
1920 to 1941 - Europe plods along, slowly rebuilding. Fascism
doesn't arise, since no nation's feelings were particularly hurt by
the war.

Italy?

Post by John Wilson
Everyone suffered equally and everyone realized it was a
stupid mistake. There is no World War II (in Europe, anyway). An
architect named Adolf Hitler keeps Europe in stitches with his absurd
ideas for grandiose buildings....
The USSA itself experiences virtually zero immigration from
Europe after the Revolution, except for a few ideological fanatics.
Thus the population of Southern and Eastern Europeans is much lower
than OTL.
1941, 7 December - The Empire of Japan attacks the USSA at Pearl
Harbour, Territory of Hawaii. Capitalist Russia joins the USSA in war
against the Japanese, mainly in revenge for the events of 1905.
1945 - Russia and the USSA finally conquer Japan and divide it
in half. The USSA gets the two southernmost major islands, and Russia
gets the two northernmost islands. In a similar way, the Japanese
colony of Korea is divided at the 38th paralell, with capitalist
Russians controlling North Korea and the USSA maintaining South Korea
as well as South Japan as "allies in socialism".
1948 - The Zionist Movement finally gets its dream come true.
Madagascar becomes "New Israel, Homeland of the Jewish People". Russia
and the Polish-speaking parts of Germany become nearly devoid of Jews
by the time the year is over.
1958 - The Russians launch a spacecraft called "Sputnik" into
orbit around the world. Not to be outdone, the USSA starts its own
space program, with a goal of landing on the moon by 1970.
1961 - Tired of the "brain drain" (emigration of educated people)
to Canada and Mexico, the USSA builds a solid steel wall along both
borders, claiming the real purpose is to keep Mexicans and Canadians
out. However, the whole world knows better....
1969 - The USSA sends its first manned spacecraft, "Execution 1"
to the moon. Condemned prisoners are given the choice of making the
one-way trip in lieu of going to the electric chair.
1979 - The nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island melts down.
The USSA govenment claims "radiation is good for your health" but most
people don't believe it....

[John Wilson]

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa

Post by John Wilson
Having read the (unrealistic) book by that name, I'd like to project a
more realistic scenario for the POD of Socialist revolution in the USA
1917 - Socialist revoultion takes the United States by Storm.
Eugene V. Debs, General Secretary of the Socialist Party, becomes
President-for-Life of the United Socialist States of America, or USSA
for short.
1918 - USSA troops withdraw from Europe (note: this isn't just
to parallel Brest-Livostk in OTL; the Socialists *were* against the
war.)
1919 - World War I finally winds down to a halt with *no one*
winning. All countries agree to "pretend it never happened" and go
back to their pre- 1914 borders, with the forms of government thay had
before 1914 (thus preserving monarchy as the dominant form of
government in Europe).

Unrealistic.
With a PoD in 1917, even if the US troops leave Europe in 1918, The Entente
troops will be in Berlin in 1919, spearheaded by concentration of 1000s -
literally - of tanks.

I thought prior to US involvement OTL, both sides were so worn
out they were considering agreeing to a stalemate....

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa

Post by John Wilson
1920 to 1941 - Europe plods along, slowly rebuilding. Fascism
doesn't arise, since no nation's feelings were particularly hurt by
the war.

Italy?

Post by John Wilson
Everyone suffered equally and everyone realized it was a
stupid mistake. There is no World War II (in Europe, anyway). An
architect named Adolf Hitler keeps Europe in stitches with his absurd
ideas for grandiose buildings....
The USSA itself experiences virtually zero immigration from
Europe after the Revolution, except for a few ideological fanatics.
Thus the population of Southern and Eastern Europeans is much lower
than OTL.
1941, 7 December - The Empire of Japan attacks the USSA at Pearl
Harbour, Territory of Hawaii. Capitalist Russia joins the USSA in war
against the Japanese, mainly in revenge for the events of 1905.
1945 - Russia and the USSA finally conquer Japan and divide it
in half. The USSA gets the two southernmost major islands, and Russia
gets the two northernmost islands. In a similar way, the Japanese
colony of Korea is divided at the 38th paralell, with capitalist
Russians controlling North Korea and the USSA maintaining South Korea
as well as South Japan as "allies in socialism".
1948 - The Zionist Movement finally gets its dream come true.
Madagascar becomes "New Israel, Homeland of the Jewish People". Russia
and the Polish-speaking parts of Germany become nearly devoid of Jews
by the time the year is over.
1958 - The Russians launch a spacecraft called "Sputnik" into
orbit around the world. Not to be outdone, the USSA starts its own
space program, with a goal of landing on the moon by 1970.
1961 - Tired of the "brain drain" (emigration of educated people)
to Canada and Mexico, the USSA builds a solid steel wall along both
borders, claiming the real purpose is to keep Mexicans and Canadians
out. However, the whole world knows better....
1969 - The USSA sends its first manned spacecraft, "Execution 1"
to the moon. Condemned prisoners are given the choice of making the
one-way trip in lieu of going to the electric chair.
1979 - The nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island melts down.
The USSA govenment claims "radiation is good for your health" but most
people don't believe it....

[HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa]

Post by John Wilson

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa

Post by John Wilson
Having read the (unrealistic) book by that name, I'd like to project a
more realistic scenario for the POD of Socialist revolution in the USA
1917 - Socialist revoultion takes the United States by Storm.
Eugene V. Debs, General Secretary of the Socialist Party, becomes
President-for-Life of the United Socialist States of America, or USSA
for short.
1918 - USSA troops withdraw from Europe (note: this isn't just
to parallel Brest-Livostk in OTL; the Socialists *were* against the
war.)
1919 - World War I finally winds down to a halt with *no one*
winning. All countries agree to "pretend it never happened" and go
back to their pre- 1914 borders, with the forms of government thay had
before 1914 (thus preserving monarchy as the dominant form of
government in Europe).

Unrealistic.
With a PoD in 1917, even if the US troops leave Europe in 1918, The Entente
troops will be in Berlin in 1919, spearheaded by concentration of 1000s -
literally - of tanks.

I thought prior to US involvement OTL, both sides were so worn
out they were considering agreeing to a stalemate....

Though there were some negociation, AFAIK, they didn't get very far because
each wanted MUCH more than the other was willing to give. Very far from
Stalemate.

Also, the low point of Entente morale was early 1917, before the PoD, and,
by 1918, Entente had enough superiority to finish the job even without
further US involvment. The main US support to the Entente was Industrial and
Financial. Then came the Morale Effect and Food production. Military was
afterward, IMO, as the actual US involvement in the fighting prior to the
german army breaking was not very significant ( about 1% of the troops on
the front, IIRC ) - it would have been very different if there had been
fighting in 1919, as USA was still gearing to war -.

In summary, by end 1917, USA had already provided to the Entente the most
critical support it provided OTL. Which is why the PoD is too late to end
WWI as a stalemate. Now, if the PoD was a strict ( in the sense of not one
dot of loan or trade ) neutrality toward europe, in 1916 - or better yet
1915 -, it would be more plausible. Not sure, but plausible.

[Alan Lothian]

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
In summary, by end 1917, USA had already provided to the Entente the most
critical support it provided OTL. Which is why the PoD is too late to end
WWI as a stalemate.

Generally, I agree. But the presence of US troops *in the pipeline*
(comment le dirait-on en francais?) had a huge moral effect on the
Allies, especially the French. And a huge effect on the Germans, too.
Why do you think Ludendorff risked the Michael offensives in March
1918? Not because the Americans were "over there", but because they
were on their way.

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
Now, if the PoD was a strict ( in the sense of not one
dot of loan or trade ) neutrality toward europe, in 1916 - or better yet
1915 -, it would be more plausible. Not sure, but plausible.

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
In summary, by end 1917, USA had already provided to the Entente the most
critical support it provided OTL. Which is why the PoD is too late to end
WWI as a stalemate.

Generally, I agree. But the presence of US troops *in the pipeline*
(comment le dirait-on en francais?) had a huge moral effect on the
Allies, especially the French. And a huge effect on the Germans, too.
Why do you think Ludendorff risked the Michael offensives in March
1918? Not because the Americans were "over there", but because they
were on their way.

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
Now, if the PoD was a strict ( in the sense of not one
dot of loan or trade ) neutrality toward europe, in 1916 - or better yet
1915 -, it would be more plausible. Not sure, but plausible.

pipeline ['paıplaın]noun
(for gas) gazoduc m; pipeline m
(for oil) oléoduc m; pipeline
it is in the pipeline (figurative use) c'est en route; ça va se faire


Spanish sounds better:

pipeline ['paıplaın] noun
(for water) tubería f; cañería f
(for oil) oleoducto m
(for gas) gasoducto m
◆ IDIOM: it's in the pipeline está en proyecto; se está
tramitando

One very large hole in the POD is that the Americans who went over
were going to show those cowardly Frogs and Brits what a real soldier
looked like. My HS chemistry teacher got the inspiration for his
trade by taking a shot of mustard gas in the first hours of his unit's
action.

[HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa]

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
In summary, by end 1917, USA had already provided to the Entente the most
critical support it provided OTL. Which is why the PoD is too late to end
WWI as a stalemate.

Generally, I agree. But the presence of US troops *in the pipeline*
(comment le dirait-on en francais?) had a huge moral effect on the
Allies, especially the French. And a huge effect on the Germans, too.
Why do you think Ludendorff risked the Michael offensives in March
1918? Not because the Americans were "over there", but because they
were on their way.

Both somewhat true, but it doesn't really affect this TL.

The most dangerous point for french Morale was early 1917. In 1918, french
Morale was actually up. So the most effects have already been done

Second, if the german offensive was perhaps hastened by US presence, there
would have been an offensive in early 1918. The German have done one EVERY
year of the war. Everyone of which was THE final offensive to win the war.
It was really embedded in the german HGQ mind.

Third, even if the German army had gone on the defensive, and not broken its
own back by forming stormtroops, the days of static front were at end. The
allied offensives in 1918 were spearheaded by 100s of tanks at each attacks.
In 1919, it was to be 1000s, literally. The germans didn't have a way to
stop those massive attacks.

Another point. The removal of US troops is actually going to help the
logistics of Entente troops in the short therm. OTL, a lot of Uk and french
made materials, ammunition and weapons went to equip and train US troops who
never saw fighting. In this TL, it's going to go to front-line troops. Of
course, this will reverse in longer term...

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
Now, if the PoD was a strict ( in the sense of not one
dot of loan or trade ) neutrality toward europe, in 1916 - or better yet
1915 -, it would be more plausible. Not sure, but plausible.

--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun
My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try atlothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk

[Alan Lothian]

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
In summary, by end 1917, USA had already provided to the Entente the

most

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
critical support it provided OTL. Which is why the PoD is too late to

end

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
WWI as a stalemate.

Generally, I agree. But the presence of US troops *in the pipeline*
(comment le dirait-on en francais?) had a huge moral effect on the
Allies, especially the French. And a huge effect on the Germans, too.
Why do you think Ludendorff risked the Michael offensives in March
1918? Not because the Americans were "over there", but because they
were on their way.

Both somewhat true, but it doesn't really affect this TL.

True.

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
The most dangerous point for french Morale was early 1917. In 1918, french
Morale was actually up. So the most effects have already been done

Yes, but what faces the Allies (c'est a dire l'Entente, since the
Americans are only an Associated Power) is a full-scale attack on
seriously entrenched German positions. They'll do it, but there will be
a few problems.

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
Second, if the german offensive was perhaps hastened by US presence, there
would have been an offensive in early 1918. The German have done one EVERY
year of the war. Everyone of which was THE final offensive to win the war.
It was really embedded in the german HGQ mind.

Hmm. 1915: German offensives? None. 1916 Falkenhayn's demonstration of
his inability to perform simple arithmetic at Verdun. 1917: None.
Consider the offensives launched by the French and the British in these
years. "Heureux sont ceux qui sont morts/Pour la terre charnelle". Mind
you, Peguy (excuse-moi le manque d'accents) was writing in '14. BTW:
have you ever read Paul LIntier's "Ma Piece", well translated into
English as "My 75"? A fine writer and a good poet. "Le sous-officier
Lintier Paul est mort pour la France" early 1916, I think.

I sometimes really beleve that the EU is a clumsy and fumbling European
way of finding an answer to First Big Mistake, not the Second. We [for
varying values of "we"] really, but really, blew it in 1914-1915.

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
Third, even if the German army had gone on the defensive, and not broken its
own back by forming stormtroops, the days of static front were at end. The
allied offensives in 1918 were spearheaded by 100s of tanks at each attacks.
In 1919, it was to be 1000s, literally. The germans didn't have a way to
stop those massive attacks.

I agree entirely, except that I worry perhaps a little more than you
about the state of Allied morale. But "Plan 1919" would have happened
with or without the Americans. And the French Army by summer '18 was
certainly capable of vigorous and competent aggressive action.

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
Another point. The removal of US troops is actually going to help the
logistics of Entente troops in the short therm. OTL, a lot of Uk and french
made materials, ammunition and weapons went to equip and train US troops who
never saw fighting. In this TL, it's going to go to front-line troops. Of
course, this will reverse in longer term...

This seems quite startlingly true,and you are the first person to bring
it to my attention. A shrewd point, Frederic. I still say that the
mere, potential existence of Great American Armies had a huge morale
effect on both sides. Big strong healthy chaps.......

[HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa]

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
Both somewhat true, but it doesn't really affect this TL.

True.

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
The most dangerous point for french Morale was early 1917. In 1918, french
Morale was actually up. So the most effects have already been done

Yes, but what faces the Allies (c'est a dire l'Entente, since the
Americans are only an Associated Power) is a full-scale attack on
seriously entrenched German positions. They'll do it, but there will be
a few problems.

Yes, but this time, unlike 1914-16, they have the tools and doctrine to do
it, and more importantly, they can exploit it. Yes, it will be costly in
human life, but it will work.

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
Second, if the german offensive was perhaps hastened by US presence, there
would have been an offensive in early 1918. The German have done one EVERY
year of the war. Everyone of which was THE final offensive to win the war.
It was really embedded in the german HGQ mind.

Hmm. 1915: German offensives? None.

???? Maybe we have a different definition of offensive, but I seem to
remember a little something in Flanders in april 1915, including the first
use of chemical weapons on the western fromt. Also, again, IIRC, there was a
german attack on the russian from in June.

Post by Alan Lothian
1916 Falkenhayn's demonstration of
his inability to perform simple arithmetic at Verdun. 1917: None.

Not on the western front, but the german army was definitely advancing on
the east.

Post by Alan Lothian
Consider the offensives launched by the French and the British in these
years. "Heureux sont ceux qui sont morts/Pour la terre charnelle". Mind
have you ever read Paul LIntier's "Ma Piece", well translated into
English as "My 75"? A fine writer and a good poet. "Le sous-officier
Lintier Paul est mort pour la France" early 1916, I think.

I can't say I have.

Post by Alan Lothian
I sometimes really beleve that the EU is a clumsy and fumbling European
way of finding an answer to First Big Mistake, not the Second. We [for
varying values of "we"] really, but really, blew it in 1914-1915.

I'd add 1916, but I definitely agree.

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
Third, even if the German army had gone on the defensive, and not broken its
own back by forming stormtroops, the days of static front were at end. The
allied offensives in 1918 were spearheaded by 100s of tanks at each attacks.
In 1919, it was to be 1000s, literally. The germans didn't have a way to
stop those massive attacks.

I agree entirely, except that I worry perhaps a little more than you
about the state of Allied morale. But "Plan 1919" would have happened
with or without the Americans. And the French Army by summer '18 was
certainly capable of vigorous and competent aggressive action.

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
Another point. The removal of US troops is actually going to help the
logistics of Entente troops in the short therm. OTL, a lot of Uk and french
made materials, ammunition and weapons went to equip and train US troops who
never saw fighting. In this TL, it's going to go to front-line troops. Of
course, this will reverse in longer term...

This seems quite startlingly true,and you are the first person to bring
it to my attention. A shrewd point, Frederic.

Mind, it was only a temporary shortage, IOTL, and a relative one at that.
So, in the medium term, it will not be very significant; but it may have
some local effects.

Post by Alan Lothian
I still say that the
mere, potential existence of Great American Armies had a huge morale
effect on both sides. Big strong healthy chaps.......

Oh yes, it had. I'm not saying this doesn't have an effect. The war will
definitely be lengthened. All that I'm saying is that removing US troops in
1918 is too late to bring a stalemate on the front. IMO, it means that WWI
will end in 1919, with Entente troops in Berlin ( wich kills the stab in the
back myth ).

Post by Alan Lothian
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun
My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try atlothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
Both somewhat true, but it doesn't really affect this TL.

True.

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
The most dangerous point for french Morale was early 1917. In 1918,

french

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
Morale was actually up. So the most effects have already been done

Yes, but what faces the Allies (c'est a dire l'Entente, since the
Americans are only an Associated Power) is a full-scale attack on
seriously entrenched German positions. They'll do it, but there will be
a few problems.

Yes, but this time, unlike 1914-16, they have the tools and doctrine to do
it, and more importantly, they can exploit it. Yes, it will be costly in
human life, but it will work.

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
Second, if the german offensive was perhaps hastened by US presence,

there

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
would have been an offensive in early 1918. The German have done one

EVERY

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
year of the war. Everyone of which was THE final offensive to win the

war.

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
It was really embedded in the german HGQ mind.

Hmm. 1915: German offensives? None.

???? Maybe we have a different definition of offensive, but I seem to
remember a little something in Flanders in april 1915, including the first
use of chemical weapons on the western fromt. Also, again, IIRC, there was a
german attack on the russian from in June.

Post by Alan Lothian
1916 Falkenhayn's demonstration of
his inability to perform simple arithmetic at Verdun. 1917: None.

Not on the western front, but the german army was definitely advancing on
the east.

Post by Alan Lothian
Consider the offensives launched by the French and the British in these
years. "Heureux sont ceux qui sont morts/Pour la terre charnelle". Mind
have you ever read Paul LIntier's "Ma Piece", well translated into
English as "My 75"? A fine writer and a good poet. "Le sous-officier
Lintier Paul est mort pour la France" early 1916, I think.

I can't say I have.

Post by Alan Lothian
I sometimes really beleve that the EU is a clumsy and fumbling European
way of finding an answer to First Big Mistake, not the Second. We [for
varying values of "we"] really, but really, blew it in 1914-1915.

I'd add 1916, but I definitely agree.

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
Third, even if the German army had gone on the defensive, and not broken

its

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
own back by forming stormtroops, the days of static front were at end.

The

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
allied offensives in 1918 were spearheaded by 100s of tanks at each

attacks.

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
In 1919, it was to be 1000s, literally. The germans didn't have a way to
stop those massive attacks.

I agree entirely, except that I worry perhaps a little more than you
about the state of Allied morale. But "Plan 1919" would have happened
with or without the Americans. And the French Army by summer '18 was
certainly capable of vigorous and competent aggressive action.

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
Another point. The removal of US troops is actually going to help the
logistics of Entente troops in the short therm. OTL, a lot of Uk and

french

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
made materials, ammunition and weapons went to equip and train US troops

who

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
never saw fighting. In this TL, it's going to go to front-line troops.

Of

Post by Alan Lothian

Post by HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
course, this will reverse in longer term...

This seems quite startlingly true,and you are the first person to bring
it to my attention. A shrewd point, Frederic.

Mind, it was only a temporary shortage, IOTL, and a relative one at that.
So, in the medium term, it will not be very significant; but it may have
some local effects.

Post by Alan Lothian
I still say that the
mere, potential existence of Great American Armies had a huge morale
effect on both sides. Big strong healthy chaps.......

Oh yes, it had. I'm not saying this doesn't have an effect. The war will
definitely be lengthened. All that I'm saying is that removing US troops in
1918 is too late to bring a stalemate on the front. IMO, it means that WWI
will end in 1919, with Entente troops in Berlin ( wich kills the stab in the
back myth ).

Post by Alan Lothian
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun
My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try atlothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk

I can offer a possible event that would negate the arrival of the
Americans: some form of sitting them down in the rear and assigning
what they would conceive as 'non-fighting' duties. If done on a large
scale---but m'sieu we have not the cannon, the rifles, the mess kits
to equip you---you might get a sit down strike. "We came here to fight
and we have our American rifles and we'll take our chances on the
food, show us some Huns". But you must be properly equipped, the hell
with it we are going back home. A sort of let us fight or we go home
attitude that the Germans would exploit and the Allies would try to
hush up.

[Alan Lothian]

Post by John Wilson
Having read the (unrealistic) book by that name, I'd like to project a
more realistic scenario for the POD of Socialist revolution in the USA

Tough one, but that's what the group is about.

Post by John Wilson
1917 - Socialist revoultion takes the United States by Storm.
Eugene V. Debs, General Secretary of the Socialist Party, becomes
President-for-Life of the United Socialist States of America, or USSA
for short.

I rather fancy you need some more detail to make this even a remotely
convincing PoD. Nice chap, Debs. Not one of Us, of course.

Post by John Wilson
1918 - USSA troops withdraw from Europe (note: this isn't just
to parallel Brest-Livostk in OTL; the Socialists *were* against the
war.)

Ok, just about. Huge complications ensue re Allied (ie Entente)
morale, but the Entente has the stuff to do the job, and the Germans
have shot their bolt.

Post by John Wilson
1919 - World War I finally winds down to a halt with *no one*
winning. All countries agree to "pretend it never happened" and go
back to their pre- 1914 borders, with the forms of government thay had
before 1914 (thus preserving monarchy as the dominant form of
government in Europe).

Improbable. As Frederic points out downthread, the Entente,unless
either France or Britain collapses politically, will be in Berlin by
summer 1919. You are already stretching your initial -- and
unjustified -- PoD.

Post by John Wilson
1920 to 1941 - Europe plods along, slowly rebuilding. Fascism
doesn't arise, since no nation's feelings were particularly hurt by
the war. Everyone suffered equally and everyone realized it was a
stupid mistake. There is no World War II (in Europe, anyway). An
architect named Adolf Hitler keeps Europe in stitches with his absurd
ideas for grandiose buildings....

You are committing the cardinal error of alternate history: building a
diffuse future on an unexplained PoD. Motorized butterflies, if you
will.

By the time you get to "spacecraft".....

[Sean Daugherty]

Post by John Wilson
Having read the (unrealistic) book by that name, I'd like to project a
more realistic scenario for the POD of Socialist revolution in the USA
1917 - Socialist revoultion takes the United States by Storm.
Eugene V. Debs, General Secretary of the Socialist Party, becomes
President-for-Life of the United Socialist States of America, or USSA
for short.
1918 - USSA troops withdraw from Europe (note: this isn't just
to parallel Brest-Livostk in OTL; the Socialists *were* against the
war.)

Here's the thing: you've posited a POD for a socialist victory in
America, but this does not, in and of itself, affect the situation in
Russia. The socialists taking over the US doesn't mean that the
tsarists, or even Kerensky's provisional government, are going to wind
up much different than they did in OTL. You need a different POD to
wind up with a capitalist Russia.

Post by John Wilson
1919 - World War I finally winds down to a halt with *no one*
winning. All countries agree to "pretend it never happened" and go
back to their pre- 1914 borders, with the forms of government thay had
before 1914 (thus preserving monarchy as the dominant form of
government in Europe).

Again, the problem is that by 1919 the damage was basically done: the
central powers (and Russia) were basically worn down to nothing by the
war. You're still saddled with massive political and social upheaval
at basically all points west of France. You're not adding the
resentment of Versailles to the mix, but you've still got a rather
dangerous power vacuum in Europe to contend with.

Post by John Wilson
1941, 7 December - The Empire of Japan attacks the USSA at Pearl
Harbour, Territory of Hawaii. Capitalist Russia joins the USSA in war
against the Japanese, mainly in revenge for the events of 1905.

Possible. But that's a long time to hold a grudge over a conflict that
was, while certainly embarassing for the Russians, hardly a major
long-term problem. Plus, there's the question of what America's
economic and political situation is at this point: in OTL, the attack
on Pearl Harbor was prompted, as much as anything, by a simmering
rivalry between Japan and the USA over dominance of the Pacific. I
can't help but think that a civil war/revolution in the USA twenty
years earlier might have sufficiently disrupted things such that
America wasn't really posing a major threat to Japan's sphere of
influence.

More likely, I think we'd see a conflict between the European powers
and Japan. Britain and France had substantial colonial holdings in
southeast Asia, and there's also the potential of the dispute between
Japan and Russia over ownership of the Kuril islands up to the north.
Without the war against Germany and Italy to distract them, and
assuming Japan follows a militaristic course similar to the course it
followed in OTL, I think we'd be looking at a Pacific conflict between
France, Britain, and Russia on one side, and Japan on the other.

If you really want to get America involved, I think you're better off
looking at China. Have the socialist USSA intervene on behalf of Mao's
communists in China during the Sino-Japanese conflict. Even if the
intervention is only indirect, a la a sort of communist Lend Lease, it
might be enough to get Japan launching a few warning volleys, so to
speak, against the USSA, or at least to block shipping. The only
problem here is that it's kind of hard to drag this one out very far:
if Japan is foolhardy enough to get into a full-fledged war with three
European powers *and* America, it seems unlikely they'd be able to
hold their own for very long. You might be able to fineagle things so
that Germany and Italy still intervene on Japan's behalf: even without
the embarassment of WWI, both countries were still slow to start on
the colonialism game, and might be persauded to participate on the
hopes that it would hold back further Franco-British expansionism. But
it's... awkward, and you'd be more likely to wind up with a cold war
situation than an out-and-out shooting war.

Post by John Wilson
1945 - Russia and the USSA finally conquer Japan and divide it
in half. The USSA gets the two southernmost major islands, and Russia
gets the two northernmost islands. In a similar way, the Japanese
colony of Korea is divided at the 38th paralell, with capitalist
Russians controlling North Korea and the USSA maintaining South Korea
as well as South Japan as "allies in socialism".

I don't think you're going to be able to affect a partition of Japan
under these circumstances. Given my above musings, I think it's more
likely that Japan keeps its four main islands, and the outlying
islands are divvied up among the European powers. You might get some
sort of domino effect if you posit an eventual communist triumph in
China's internal struggles, though, but that's probably a whole
'nother discussion, to be honest....

Post by John Wilson
1948 - The Zionist Movement finally gets its dream come true.
Madagascar becomes "New Israel, Homeland of the Jewish People". Russia
and the Polish-speaking parts of Germany become nearly devoid of Jews
by the time the year is over.

The only people who seem to have taken the idea of relocating the Jews
to Madagascar seriously were the Nazis, who, obviously, don't have
much of a voice in this ATL. Besides, the rationale for this change
isn't clear: why is the presence of a socialist government in
Washington going to affect the course of the Zionist movement/creation
of Israel? Not that it *wouldn't*, necessarily, but it's not
immediately apparent. And the date is questionable, as well: in OTL,
the creation of Israel had a lot to do with WWII, not only because of
Hitler's antics (so to speak), but also because of the damage the
European war did to the British empire. England couldn't maintain its
vast overseas holdings, hence the mass independence of most of its
former colonies (Palestine, India, etc.) Without the massive upset of
the war, these trends would likely have taken considerably longer to
have a major effect.

Post by John Wilson
1961 - Tired of the "brain drain" (emigration of educated people)
to Canada and Mexico, the USSA builds a solid steel wall along both
borders, claiming the real purpose is to keep Mexicans and Canadians
out. However, the whole world knows better....

Erm... a *solid* steel wall? Along the US/Canada border? That's a
couple thousand miles. I mean, leaving aside the issue of where you're
gonna get all the steel, there's also the issue of how you manage to
stick border guards along a frontier *that* large.

I think the problem is that a timeline where America goes socialist
and Russia doesn't simply isn't going to look the same (even if
mirrored) as OTL. For "Back in the USSA" (the novel), this didn't
matter, as it wasn't *trying* to present a realistic ATL, it was
merely goofing around with a premise. Coming up with a reasonable
timeline, though, is a lot trickier, and the end result is going to
look a *lot* different than what we've got now....

[Lee Ratner]

Post by John Wilson
Having read the (unrealistic) book by that name, I'd like to project a
more realistic scenario for the POD of Socialist revolution in the USA
1917 - Socialist revoultion takes the United States by Storm.
Eugene V. Debs, General Secretary of the Socialist Party, becomes
President-for-Life of the United Socialist States of America, or USSA
for short.

Just a question, why?

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by John Wilson
Having read the (unrealistic) book by that name, I'd like to project a
more realistic scenario for the POD of Socialist revolution in the USA
<snip>>
1941, 7 December - The Empire of Japan attacks the USSA at Pearl
Harbour, Territory of Hawaii. Capitalist Russia joins the USSA in war
against the Japanese, mainly in revenge for the events of 1905.
1945 - Russia and the USSA finally conquer Japan and divide it
in half. The USSA gets the two southernmost major islands, and Russia
gets the two northernmost islands. In a similar way, the Japanese
colony of Korea is divided at the 38th paralell, with capitalist
Russians controlling North Korea and the USSA maintaining South Korea
as well as South Japan as "allies in socialism".

I have real qualms about your history which are covered by the other
commenters but your geography is really in question. What are the 'two
southern islands' and 'two northern islands' of Japan? I get Okinawa
and Kyushu but are you saying Kuriles and Hokkaido? Kuriles and the
rest of Sakhalin?

A real WWII type co-occupation might have everything down to Nagoya
Russian and everything South USSA. This is about the traditional
"East" and "West" in Japanese history. Hard to imagine a joint
occupation of Tokyo and the Kanto, perhaps a USSA buildup of Osaka as
an industrial capital with an adjoining traditional area of Kyoto and
Nara as sort of a Banzai Bonn. Getting a socialist state in the USSA
half is possible, getting a monarchist state in the Russian half is
possible. The real problem is when the occupation ends, or is this a
nether-world Iraq?

[Ian C. Racey]

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by John Wilson
1945 - Russia and the USSA finally conquer Japan and divide it
in half. The USSA gets the two southernmost major islands, and Russia
gets the two northernmost islands. In a similar way, the Japanese
colony of Korea is divided at the 38th paralell, with capitalist
Russians controlling North Korea and the USSA maintaining South Korea
as well as South Japan as "allies in socialism".

I have real qualms about your history which are covered by the other
commenters but your geography is really in question. What are the 'two
southern islands' and 'two northern islands' of Japan? I get Okinawa
and Kyushu but are you saying Kuriles and Hokkaido? Kuriles and the
rest of Sakhalin?

I believe what he intended by "two northernmost islands" was Honshu and
Hokkaido. Though I would hardly call that "divid[ing] it in half".

Ian

[John Wilson]

Post by Ian C. Racey

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by John Wilson
1945 - Russia and the USSA finally conquer Japan and divide it
in half. The USSA gets the two southernmost major islands, and Russia
gets the two northernmost islands. In a similar way, the Japanese
colony of Korea is divided at the 38th paralell, with capitalist
Russians controlling North Korea and the USSA maintaining South Korea
as well as South Japan as "allies in socialism".

I have real qualms about your history which are covered by the other
commenters but your geography is really in question. What are the 'two
southern islands' and 'two northern islands' of Japan? I get Okinawa
and Kyushu but are you saying Kuriles and Hokkaido? Kuriles and the
rest of Sakhalin?

I believe what he intended by "two northernmost islands" was Honshu and
Hokkaido. Though I would hardly call that "divid[ing] it in half".
Ian

You are right. My error. I post from a public library, and am
usually relying on memory for historical/geographical facts. Though
there are reference books all around me, getting up to use one usually
means forefeiting my seat at the computer...I was *quite* embarassed
when I looked at a map of Japan this morning. I remembered Japan had
four (main) islands, but didn't realize the sheer disproportionality
(*against* "my side"!) of dividing them "two by two". I will try to
post more carefully in the future....

Post by Ian C. Racey
--
Ian C. Racey, Warrior-Poet
Gainesville, Florida
"Is it a coincidence that Booth's death was suspicious? It is reported he
died in a barn. Now who do we know that uses a barn more than anyone else?
Now you see...The AMISH!! Did the Amish catch and kill Booth and then let
the federal troops have him?"
The Beaver County Militia

[David Johnston]

Post by John Wilson
Having read the (unrealistic) book by that name, I'd like to project a
more realistic scenario for the POD of Socialist revolution in the USA
1917 - Socialist revoultion takes the United States by Storm.
Eugene V. Debs, General Secretary of the Socialist Party, becomes
President-for-Life of the United Socialist States of America, or USSA
for short.
1918 - USSA troops withdraw from Europe (note: this isn't just
to parallel Brest-Livostk in OTL; the Socialists *were* against the
war.)
1919 - World War I finally winds down to a halt with *no one*
winning. All countries agree to "pretend it never happened" and go
back to their pre- 1914 borders, with the forms of government thay had
before 1914 (thus preserving monarchy as the dominant form of
government in Europe).
1920 to 1941 - Europe plods along, slowly rebuilding. Fascism
doesn't arise, since no nation's feelings were particularly hurt by
the war.

Italy's feelings weren't all that hurt in the first place.

Post by John Wilson
1941, 7 December - The Empire of Japan attacks the USSA at Pearl
Harbour, Territory of Hawaii.

Why? The USSA is unlikely to embargo Japan because it needs
the trade.

Capitalist Russia joins the USSA in war

Post by John Wilson
against the Japanese, mainly in revenge for the events of 1905.
1945 - Russia and the USSA finally conquer Japan and divide it
in half. The USSA gets the two southernmost major islands, and Russia
gets the two northernmost islands. In a similar way, the Japanese
colony of Korea is divided at the 38th paralell, with capitalist
Russians controlling North Korea and the USSA maintaining South Korea
as well as South Japan as "allies in socialism".

It seems improbable to me that the United States would invade Korea
before subduing Japan proper and it seems improbable to me that
the Russians would invade Japan before finishing with Korea.

Post by John Wilson
1948 - The Zionist Movement finally gets its dream come true.
Madagascar becomes "New Israel, Homeland of the Jewish People". Russia
and the Polish-speaking parts of Germany become nearly devoid of Jews
by the time the year is over.

Oh yes, Madagascar is so inviting. Everyone wants to go there.

Post by John Wilson
1958 - The Russians launch a spacecraft called "Sputnik" into
orbit around the world. Not to be outdone, the USSA starts its own
space program, with a goal of landing on the moon by 1970.

Unlikely. No World War II. No capture of German rocket engineers.

Post by John Wilson
1961 - Tired of the "brain drain" (emigration of educated people)
to Canada and Mexico, the USSA builds a solid steel wall along both
borders, claiming the real purpose is to keep Mexicans and Canadians
out. However, the whole world knows better....

That's impractical. The Canadian border is just too long. Much
better to conquer Canada and then patrol the Mexican border.

[Robert J. Gill]

Post by John Wilson
1961 - Tired of the "brain drain" (emigration of educated

people) to Canada and Mexico, the USSA builds a solid steel
wall along both borders, claiming the real purpose is to keep
Mexicans and Canadians out. However, the whole world knows better....

Post by John Wilson
That's impractical. The Canadian border is just too long.

Much better to conquer Canada and then patrol the Mexican border.



Speaking of the Mexican border, that's another unrealistic
(not to mention, confusing) part of the original USSA book;
it isn't all that clear as to whether or not all of Texas was
detached and given to Mexico, or if only part of Texas was
detached, leaving a "rump" Texas in USSA hands. The alt-Buddy
Holley mentions that it was cut loose, and given to the Zapata
regime, but also mentions that the entire population of his
Texas community (and its wartime industry) was relocated to
Kansas during WWII, in the event that Mexico developed Axis
sympathies. So it's either in Mexican hands, or isn't--it's
never made clear. And the post-Communist introduction to the
book has mobs tearing down the infamous "Texican Wall," a wall
not unlike that mentioned in this SHWI scenario. Personally, I
would think that a Communist regime would want to hold on to
Texas, rather than stupidly hand over such a valuable source of
oil to its Mexican rivals, an act which would be detrimental to
Communist industry.

[Sam R.]

John Wilson wrote in message

Post by John Wilson
Having read the (unrealistic) book by that name, I'd like to project a
more realistic scenario for the POD of Socialist revolution in the USA
1917 - Socialist revoultion takes the United States by Storm.
Eugene V. Debs, General Secretary of the Socialist Party, becomes
President-for-Life of the United Socialist States of America, or USSA
for short.

a) Debs couldn't hack it. SP were a parliamentary movement.
b) The IWW could; if and only if it lead a strike committee movement
with significant rank and file leakage from the AFL.
c) No US revolution can succeed until the strike committees eliminate
the Navy. (cf: Seattle).
d) No US revolution 1917 is complete until Daniel De Leon is either
liquidated or in power. De Leon is a factor who will play, and
increasingly so, during increased militance.

[Ivan Hodes]

***@studentmail.newcastle.edu.au (Sam R.) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...

[snip points with which I agree]

Post by Sam R.
d) No US revolution 1917 is complete until Daniel De Leon is either
liquidated or in power. De Leon is a factor who will play, and
increasingly so, during increased militance.

I don't think so; Daniel De Leon was politically trivial.
"Mainstream" socialists were all with Debs; radicals were with the
IWW--they were more radical than de Leon. In any case, his career was
well into decline by 1917

Ivan Hodes

[David Tenner]

Post by Ivan Hodes
I don't think so; Daniel De Leon was politically trivial.
"Mainstream" socialists were all with Debs; radicals were with the
IWW--they were more radical than de Leon. In any case, his career was
well into decline by 1917

I would say that it declined about as far as it could decline on May 11,
1914...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAleon.htm

[Sam R.]

David Tenner

Post by David Tenner

Post by Ivan Hodes
I don't think so; Daniel De Leon was politically trivial.
"Mainstream" socialists were all with Debs; radicals were with the
IWW--they were more radical than de Leon. In any case, his career was
well into decline by 1917

I would say that it declined about as far as it could decline on May 11,
1914...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAleon.htm

Bummer. de Leon's SLP is useful for a number of reasons. Some kind
of polemiscist sect with ultra-left leanings but hardly any working
class membership. Reminds me of VI Lenin & JP Cannon. If the SLP
died with de Leon then its irrelevent.

I was going to use de Leon to point out that sectarian
pseudo-Stalinism was just as native to America as fine, upstanding
syndicalism and parliamentarianism.

[Ivan Hodes]

Post by David Tenner

Post by Ivan Hodes
I don't think so; Daniel De Leon was politically trivial.
"Mainstream" socialists were all with Debs; radicals were with the
IWW--they were more radical than de Leon. In any case, his career was
well into decline by 1917

I would say that it declined about as far as it could decline on May 11,
1914...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAleon.htm

Astonishingly, I looked at that very site as I composed my response to
Sam R. What, exactly, *am* I smoking/injecting?

Ivan Hodes

[Sydney Webb]

Post by Ivan Hodes

Post by David Tenner

Post by Ivan Hodes
I don't think so; Daniel De Leon was politically trivial.
"Mainstream" socialists were all with Debs; radicals were with the
IWW--they were more radical than de Leon. In any case, his career was
well into decline by 1917

I would say that it declined about as far as it could decline on May 11,
1914...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAleon.htm

Astonishingly, I looked at that very site as I composed my response to
Sam R. What, exactly, *am* I smoking/injecting?

If the regimen at West Point is anything like Duntroon or ADFA - study
combined with lots of health sport and military exercises - then I'd
guess sleep depravation.

ObWI: Daniel DeLeon is only 61 when he died. That's not exactly old,
even by primitive 20th century standards. While getting Danny to live
as long as Strom Thurmond or the Queen Mum is a bit of a reach could an
extra 10 years allow him to be a major player in the Third American
Revolution? Or is one man's life merely a ripple in the fast-flowing
stream of historic inevitability?

- Syd

[Ivan Hodes]

Post by Sydney Webb

Post by Ivan Hodes
Astonishingly, I looked at that very site as I composed my response to
Sam R. What, exactly, *am* I smoking/injecting?

If the regimen at West Point is anything like Duntroon or ADFA - study
combined with lots of health sport and military exercises - then I'd
guess sleep depravation.

Sleep is a crutch.

Post by Sydney Webb
ObWI: Daniel DeLeon is only 61 when he died. That's not exactly old,
even by primitive 20th century standards. While getting Danny to live
as long as Strom Thurmond or the Queen Mum is a bit of a reach could an
extra 10 years allow him to be a major player in the Third American
Revolution? Or is one man's life merely a ripple in the fast-flowing
stream of historic inevitability?

ISTM your second question is unrelated to the first. What you're
really after is "is Daniel De Leon's life merely a ripple in the
fast-flowing stream of historic inevitability?" To which the answer
is yes; De Leon was trivial.

Ivan Hodes

[Sam R.]

Sydney Webb kindly saved my desire to speculate about D DeLeon

Post by Sydney Webb

Post by Ivan Hodes

Post by David Tenner
I would say that it declined about as far as it could decline on May 11,
1914...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAleon.htm

Astonishingly, I looked at that very site as I composed my response to
Sam R. What, exactly, *am* I smoking/injecting?

If the regimen at West Point is anything like Duntroon or ADFA - study
combined with lots of health sport and military exercises - then I'd
guess sleep depravation.
ObWI: Daniel DeLeon is only 61 when he died. That's not exactly old,
even by primitive 20th century standards. While getting Danny to live
as long as Strom Thurmond or the Queen Mum is a bit of a reach could an
extra 10 years allow him to be a major player in the Third American
Revolution? Or is one man's life merely a ripple in the fast-flowing
stream of historic inevitability?

I read DeLeon (that damn proto-Leninist sectarian!) in relation to his
biffs with the IWW (that bastion of right-minded industrial unionism
and apolitical revolution). Which isn't exactly a fair
interpretation. DeLeon might have focused on the same features on 2nd
Internationalism that Lenin did (sectarian ultra-leftist responses,
with a big of parliament and industrial unionism chucked in).

This doesn't make DeLeon and the SLP Leninists. For one, the
Bolsheviks were formed in revolutionary struggle, whereas the SLP
developed in sectarianism. (Cough cough, Bolshies were sectarians
too, etc.) The SLP's strategies, however, were much like the Bolshies
lack of strategy with regard to the soviets. Just as the Bolshie
rank-and-file and Lenin knew the Soviets were a good thing, so too did
DeLeon have a habit of jumping onboard the next good thing going.

Which brings me to believe DeLeon could go a long way in a successful
mobilisation / revolution 1914 onwards. And DeLeon does have the
habit of jumping onto a good thing. He could well pull a Lenin by
having the right slogan at the right time (the SLP had very little
doctrine about class struggle other than sectarianism, doctrinaire
education, jumping the good thing, and sloganeering).

The other thing about a DeLeon who dies in 1924, is that Big Bill is
going to drop the ball at some stage. Will the IWW have sufficient
reserve capacity to throw Big Bill out at the right time?

[Bruce Munro]

For a communist revolution to take place in the US, you are going to
need to put the country under a great deal of stress. Historically,
communist revolutions don't "just happen" in fairly modern industrial
societies. Even rickety old Czarist Russia took three years of
extremely bloody warfare to push over the edge, and Communists failed
rather signally to get anywhere in Germany.

To get a communist revolution in the US, we will need, firstly, either
a horrendous war or an economic collapse worse than OTL's Great
Depression. However, this still probably isn't enough: there wasn't
any revolution in OTL's 30's, after all.

What is lacking are communists: there was a great deal of discontent
OTL 30's, but no far-left political parties and organizations capable
of taking advanctage of it. US Socialism essentially peaked around
WWI, and declined rapidly afterward. Before we "stress" the US, we
need to prime things by creating a genuinely strong revolutionary
leftist movement in the US.

Here, alas, we run into difficulties. As was discussed in a recent
thread (google WI Americans less anti-Marxist/Socialist) there were
quite a few reasons why the US was not very hospitable to socialist
movements. Perhaps you could get something out of the events of OTL
1876-1877: although there was no real chance of a revolution then,
either, things might have gotten bad enough to bring about some
serious political re-alignments and helped make "class warfare" more a
part of American consciousness. Combine that with a nativist reaction
which limits immigration and creates a more ethnically homogenous
labor force {1}, we might be getting somewhere.

Add in a "US in WWI 1915" scenario in which the US bleeds itself white
on the western front and the Czars make a seperate peace with the
Germans...

[Or you can just take it back to "the people are a beast" Hamilton.
Butterflies should be big enough to salvage Russia while you're at
it.]

best,

Bruce Munro



{1} OTOH, won't a lack of immigrant labor automatically lead to labor
shortages and push wages up?

[jlk7e]

Post by John Wilson
Having read the (unrealistic) book by that name, I'd like to project a
more realistic scenario for the POD of Socialist revolution in the USA
1917 - Socialist revoultion takes the United States by Storm.
Eugene V. Debs, General Secretary of the Socialist Party, becomes
President-for-Life of the United Socialist States of America, or USSA
for short.

Er, how have you saved the Tsar? At any rate, this is silliness.

[good.habit]

Post by John Wilson
Having read the (unrealistic) book by that name, I'd like to project a
more realistic scenario for the POD of Socialist revolution in the USA
1917 - Socialist revoultion takes the United States by Storm.
Eugene V. Debs, General Secretary of the Socialist Party, becomes
President-for-Life of the United Socialist States of America, or USSA
for short.

This might be possible if an earlier POD led to a stronger and more
radical union labour movement in the US and the horrors of trench
warfare - especially after Verdun - made opposition to entering the
ware much stronger.

So after the first American troops send informations out of the
trenches to their former union mates back home, the opposition against
the draft and the war becomes so radical, that after a series of
general strikes and riots the wobblies take over the entire industrial
belt from Massachusetts to Illinois and Baltimore to Detroit.

So the new worker Republic might win the following civil war,
supporting black rebels in the south and installing the Socialist
Republic of America.

But what would be the likely impact of such an event? It seems very
likely, that a successful socialist Revolution in North America would
become contagious.

Marx always held the opinion, that a successful socialist Revolution
in Russia is impossible, because the country is to backward. The
Revolution should start in the most industrialised countries first,
and - could succeed only, if it took place almost simultaneously in
all the major industrial centres. So Marx stated, that the successful
Revolution should at least include Germany, France, Britain and the
USA.

If the US went forward with the Revolution, there is no way to stop it
in Russia, and with two successful socialist take-overs becoming well
known in Europe, the common soldiers in Germany, A-H, and France might
rebel until March/April 1918 and bring the Revolution to their
countries. So by late summer 1918 - _the great year of socialist
Revolution_ - sees the proclamation of the socialist workers republic
of Britain, Ireland and of the socialist republic of Italy, so all
major European and North-American countries would be in the hand of
revolutionists.

The smaller industrial countries in Europe + Australia will probably
peacefully adapt to the new situation, so Marx's dream of successful
Revolution in all relevant industrial nations might just come trough
(maybe Japan holds on for some time...).

From here the rest of world history goes very much different...

<snip>


Having several big well developed socialist countries might see
different concepts applied in different countries, there would be no
centre of world socialism. Some would try to collectivize agriculture,
others would leave the farmers on their own, just buying their
product's with money fresh out of the printing press. Some countries
would maintain universal suffrage – others would limit representation
to union members, farmer collectives and other revolutionary
organisations. Most would dissolve the standing army and navy and
replace it with a peoples (industrial workers) militia. The withdrawal
of the colonial powers out of Africa and Asia would be interesting two
– an entire new world to discuss and explore...