The Fire Never Dies, Part II: The Red Colossus

[Meshakhad]

I just read the this excellent time-line and I am very much impressed!

Thanks!

I wonder what is happening in Sweden? I assume the leftist wing of the Social Democrats formed their own party in 1917 as OTL, and that they will not join the Komintern and split repeatedly. Instead they will probably reach out to the syndicalists and the Young Socialist Party. The swedish syndicalists are probably a lot stronger, and they will be immensely proud of General Joe Hill, who is a swedish expatriate.

I'm not so sure they'd be that proud of Hill (who was a colonel, not a general). He didn't actually do great in the war - his troops were losing ground to the Army of the Rockies until Vincent St. John, Pancho Villa, and Louis Tikas showed up. Granted, Hill's Utahns were outnumbered, but his military record is hardly outstanding. Hill certainly thinks he was a crappy commander and resigned his commission pretty much immediately after the war ended. His reputation is mostly built on his prewar activities, which were still noteworthy enough for him to become Commissar for the Interior. He might also do a spell as ambassador to Sweden - the ASU routinely names ambassadors who were born in the countries they are posted to.

Sweden will probably adopt universal suffrage in the very near future. The american revolution will cause some changes to the schedule but I expect the first elections under the new rules to happen in 1921 as in OTL. The big difference is that the left will not be handicapped by the russian connection, and that cooperation between the radical left and socialdemocrats will be a lot easier. There was a very strong incentive for creating broad alliances in the OTL electoral system, and to their great regret they tried it in 1928 - which allowed the right to claim that anybody who voted for the left voted for Moscow!

In TTL such an electoral alliance might be made in 1924 and might even lead to a parliamentary majority with the help of butterflies - no one will be afraid of the USSR in this time-line - but the most likely outcome is a social democratic minority government with the support of a 7-12 % weird heterogenous leftist party that idolizes Joe Hill and thinks fondly of Lenin.

The social democrats are likely to be the dominant force for the 1920:ies but in TTL the left wing is not likely to destroy their prospects by slavish allegiance to Moscow.

Most likely accurate. There is still the specter of socialist parties being accused of being pawns of New York (with a grain of truth) but it won't sting as much. First, America is further away than Russia. Second, American syndicalism doesn't have the authoritarian edge to it that Soviet communism did, so it's more acceptable. Finally, Wall Street doesn't exert the same kind of control over foreign parties that the Kremlin did IOTL.

Sweden is one of the places where we would probably see both DeLeonists and Leninists active, although the DeLeonist wing will be more popular (the same holds pretty much everywhere outside of Belarus and maybe Georgia). I'd expect a separate Leninist party, but they would regularly cooperate with the DeLeonists and Social Democrats.

 

[Jord839]

Maybe, maybe not. If Mexico did go hard on anticlericalism, it's unlikely the ASU will do more than make disapproving noises. The position of the Catholic Church in Mexico as not only the overwhelmingly dominant religious sect but as a powerful administrative force will make them a target even if Mexico never adopts state atheism.

Of course, Mexican Catholicism will be influenced by what happens in other socialist countries. Cuba, Haiti, and Puerto Rico are all majority Catholic. The most likely avenue for further socialist expansion in the near future is Latin America. It's not out of the question that by 1935 or so, a majority of people in the socialist world are Catholic. American Catholics were strong supporters of the Revolution and the hardcore anti-Catholic stance of the KKK helped radicalize some of the American clergy, to say nothing of the priests graduating from American seminaries these days.

This issue will probably be decided not in Mexico, but in the Vatican. I could see the Curia adopting an unofficial policy of ensuring that socialist priests stayed in socialist countries, leading to the Mexican Church being increasingly socialist (especially if they start importing American-trained priests). That said, it won't be resolved for a long time. Socialism will be a presence in the Church throughout the 20th century.

As for the other socialist states, Cuba and Puerto Rico adopted American-style separation of church and state. Haiti has seen vodou become more prominent, and the Church in Haiti is very aware that if they take a confrontational approach as they did before, the government will crack down on them, possibly leading to vodou becoming the dominant religion in Haiti.

Honestly, the Catholic issue is complicated.

This portion of OTL was generally full of anti-capitalist Catholic movements (as it was the official position of the Church at the time), it's just that most prevalent ones moved in the more corporatist/fascist direction, though especially in Latin America it moved in the opposite direction and was the seed for Liberation Theology and even in Europe you had the Worker Priests Movement. As noted, a lot of Catholics were historically and ITTL would be in favor of the American Revolution in part due to immigrant politics, which is another complicating element.

We're still pre-Vatican 2, so it's not impossible that you see a split with a socialist-leaning Pope in the Americas versus a very conservative-leaning Pope in Europe if the two main bodies of the Church can't come to an agreement. On the other hand, you could also have an overall Catholic-favored Socialist Revolution if the movement achieves more success in Europe, in particular Spain and Italy (both of which have lots of OTL precedence for such a movement). France is the odd spot out, as its laicism/anti-clericalism is even more fervent, and so it could be drawn into a more socialist Catholic group but could also be an Old Catholic bulwark fighting against Socialist influence.

Within the Americas, the Catholic Church is similarly divided. Depending on the country, they're either a focus of the reactionary elements or surprisingly progressive, and that's a factor that all potential ASR countries will have to deal with in their own individual ways. In Mexico in particular, you would either need a very pragmatic federalism or a more accommodating Catholic hierarchy to avoid a divide.

 

[diestormlie]

We're still pre-Vatican 2, so it's not impossible that you see a split with a socialist-leaning Pope in the Americas versus a very conservative-leaning Pope in Europe if the two main bodies of the Church can't come to an agreement.

To my eye, the Catholic Church, (or perhaps it is better to say 'the Papacy'), is an inherently Conservative institution. I would very much imagine the Vatican is rapidly divining how to reconcile itself with Capitalism. Especially as, well, it's the Catholic Church. It's very wealthy, owns a lot of land, and has a lot of buildings filled with expensive, shiny things.

It is, to put it the one way, a very large Landlord. But it is also the Catholic ('Universal') Church.

Not really sure how it's going to thread that particular needle, to be honest.

 

[htgriffin]

To my eye, the Catholic Church, (or perhaps it is better to say 'the Papacy'), is an inherently Conservative institution. I would very much imagine the Vatican is rapidly divining how to reconcile itself with Capitalism. Especially as, well, it's the Catholic Church. It's very wealthy, owns a lot of land, and has a lot of buildings filled with expensive, shiny things.

It is, to put it the one way, a very large Landlord. But it is also the Catholic ('Universal') Church.

Not really sure how it's going to thread that particular needle, to be honest.

Keep in mind that there is likely to be a considerable difference of opinion in general between much of the lower clergy (parish priests, the more hand-to-mouth monastic orders, etc.) and upper clergy (bishops, archbishops, the sort of monastic orders that have big estates, etc.). The amount of bleed-over/overlap is enough to slow a hard schism, but a democratic socialist movement would be very wise not to quash/persecute the former subset.

 

[Whiteshore]

For figures that could give Falangist Britain establishment creds but haven't been mentioned, may I suggest major figures in the English Mistery and similar groups, especially the likes of Gerard Wallop, Anthony Ludovici, Ronald Nall-Cain, and Hastings Russell. And on that note, Barry Domvile could be a Donitz figure within the regime (in the sense of how Donitz, despite his post-war claims, was amongst the most ardent Nazis within the Wehrmacht).

 

[Meshakhad]

For figures that could give Falangist Britain establishment creds but haven't been mentioned, may I suggest major figures in the English Mistery and similar groups, especially the likes of Gerard Wallop, Anthony Ludovici, Ronald Nall-Cain, and Hastings Russell. And on that note, Barry Domvile could be a Donitz figure within the regime (in the sense of how Donitz, despite his post-war claims, was amongst the most ardent Nazis within the Wehrmacht).

I will definitely give them a look-see. Domvile in particular will absolutely be in a senior position in the Royal Navy.

On a related topic, the legacy of the Royal Navy will be comparable in some respects to that of the Wehrmacht IOTL. With the Cold War having a much stronger naval component ITTL, what remains of the Royal Navy after the war will eventually be rehabilitated to serve as a shield against the Red Navy, not to mention using British accounts of the Atlantic War as a guide to how to fight the Red Navy. Ultimately this will birth the "Royaboo" phenomenon similar to OTL's Wehraboos.

 

[Jord839]

To my eye, the Catholic Church, (or perhaps it is better to say 'the Papacy'), is an inherently Conservative institution. I would very much imagine the Vatican is rapidly divining how to reconcile itself with Capitalism. Especially as, well, it's the Catholic Church. It's very wealthy, owns a lot of land, and has a lot of buildings filled with expensive, shiny things.

That's more or less what I'm pointing out?

The early 1900s were the height of both the so-called Modernist movement in Europe and the USA (Archibshop John Ireland of Minnesota in particular was pretty much constantly on the Vatican's shit list for being borderline Modernist, and New York had a full-on internal crisis over it) and its clash with the traditional power structures of the Catholic Church, and I can imagine a different set of politics in the Americas might exacerbate that and expand that conflict into a much bigger issue. While Liberation Theology didn't really take shape until the 1960s IOTL Latin America, the same roots and foundations are there in terms of a Catholic faction that emphasizes their social teachings and social responsibility. The Catholic Worker Movement in the USA also started in the 1930s, the French Worker Priest Movement started in the 1940s, and so on. There's potential, though this is a very different ATL, and I'm hardly trying to say that there won't be large portions of the Catholic hierarchy that fight any loss of privilege or control tooth and nail until the very bitter end.

At the same time, the arch-conservatism of the Papacy in this period as exemplified by more moderate factions like the Catholic Zentrum and various Christian Democrats, and the burgeoning growth of more extreme European reactionary Catholic interpretations of social teachings that OTL resulted in things like Italian Fascism, Spanish Falangism, Belgian Rexism, etc. are still around and will be emboldened by the rise of a set of nominally Catholic countries embracing socialism and modernism. That's going to be emphasized even more and possibly cause quite a few more problems.

I'm not proposing some situation where the Archbishops are divided and we end up with two anti-popes that have legitimate claim. I'm proposing a lot of lower level priests, either out of genuine belief or even blunt political pressure, rejecting a new Pope in Rome's authority for some reason or other and either electing their own Pope or becoming Sedevacantists.

 

[diestormlie]

Oh, I wasn't trying to disagree in any real respect. I was just trying to add my own thoughts to it.

 

[Derekc2]

So I'm curious...Since Washington DC has lost it's importance as the national capital, with New York replacing it, and it being utterly demolished from the War what is it's long term fate? I imagine even if it's rebiuilt the fact it's no longer an important city politically and the location not being that great (mostly swampland from what I understand) probably does mean it's going to be in general far smaller population wise than IOTL or before the 2nd American Revolution. I'm honestly not even sure what it's major industries will be with it no longer having any political importance...Perhaps it'll become a 'meuseum town/city' with it primarily focused on showing the history of pre-Revolution America and how the city ran during it's 'hey-day' as the capital of the United States?

 

[Whiteshore]

I will definitely give them a look-see. Domvile in particular will absolutely be in a senior position in the Royal Navy.

On a related topic, the legacy of the Royal Navy will be comparable in some respects to that of the Wehrmacht IOTL. With the Cold War having a much stronger naval component ITTL, what remains of the Royal Navy after the war will eventually be rehabilitated to serve as a shield against the Red Navy, not to mention using British accounts of the Atlantic War as a guide to how to fight the Red Navy. Ultimately this will birth the "Royaboo" phenomenon similar to OTL's Wehraboos.

Thanks! The people and groups I mentioned could represent the “turbo-reactionary” elements of British Falangism while Mosley and his followers are the “revolutionary nationalist” faction, with this dynamic between “turbo-reactionaries” and “revolutionary nationalists” being a major factor in the internal politics of Falangist Britain.

 

[piratedude]

Perhaps it'll become a 'meuseum town/city' with it primarily focused on showing the history of pre-Revolution America and how the city ran during it's 'hey-day' as the capital of the United States?

I can definitely see the Smithsonian or some of the Universities in DC becoming the caretaker of the old government buildings. I think once it's rebuilt it will have a promising future as a University town

 

[NotStaleBread]

I can definitely see the Smithsonian or some of the Universities in DC becoming the caretaker of the old government buildings. I think once it's rebuilt it will have a promising future as a University town

Depending on how urbanization/sub-urbanization changes in ITTL America, it might even end up similarly sized to OTL's Washington, which like many older American cities has lost a good share of its population since the 50s as people fled to the suburbs.

 

[Nyvis]

No real reason to not rebuild on the land that's already cleared from the swampland, since the location is pretty good once you clear it and there's a lot of history to look after.

On the other hand I doubt it'll expand much beyond that.

 

[naraht]

Depending on how urbanization/sub-urbanization changes in ITTL America, it might even end up similarly sized to OTL's Washington, which like many older American cities has lost a good share of its population since the 50s as people fled to the suburbs.

The best way to think of DC is that it *isn't* a major city prior to WWII. The post-war loss is similar to say Buffalo or Cleveland, but prior to WWII, it wasn't that large, so DC's population today (689K) is about 4% larger than it was in 1940. (Yes it grew by about 25% between 1940 and 1950 and then dropped some from there and then started growing again in the last 10-15 years or so.) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.)

In 1910, DC had 331K people. iOTL 1920, it had 437K (the second largest Percentage growth after 1890). With the fighting in DC and the move of the Capital to New York, at most, I'd expect static growth. And DC as a Museum city (and *maybe* Universities) basically turns it into a larger version of Williamsburg, VA, so I'd expect a population shrink. More or less depends on whether the City itself remains independent or is given back to Maryland (or even back to the counties that gave land)

As for the Smithsonian, as of 1917 it had four "Buildings", The Castle, Arts and Industries, the Zoo and Natural History. The Freer Gallery to house the donations of Charles Lang Freer was under constructions. You might end up with some odd merging of the National Archives and the Smithsonian.

 

[Meshakhad]

Thanks! The people and groups I mentioned could represent the “turbo-reactionary” elements of British Falangism while Mosley and his followers are the “revolutionary nationalist” faction, with this dynamic between “turbo-reactionaries” and “revolutionary nationalists” being a major factor in the internal politics of Falangist Britain.

More food for thought...

So I'm curious...Since Washington DC has lost it's importance as the national capital, with New York replacing it, and it being utterly demolished from the War what is it's long term fate? I imagine even if it's rebiuilt the fact it's no longer an important city politically and the location not being that great (mostly swampland from what I understand) probably does mean it's going to be in general far smaller population wise than IOTL or before the 2nd American Revolution. I'm honestly not even sure what it's major industries will be with it no longer having any political importance...Perhaps it'll become a 'meuseum town/city' with it primarily focused on showing the history of pre-Revolution America and how the city ran during it's 'hey-day' as the capital of the United States?

I can definitely see the Smithsonian or some of the Universities in DC becoming the caretaker of the old government buildings. I think once it's rebuilt it will have a promising future as a University town

Depending on how urbanization/sub-urbanization changes in ITTL America, it might even end up similarly sized to OTL's Washington, which like many older American cities has lost a good share of its population since the 50s as people fled to the suburbs.

No real reason to not rebuild on the land that's already cleared from the swampland, since the location is pretty good once you clear it and there's a lot of history to look after.

On the other hand I doubt it'll expand much beyond that.

The best way to think of DC is that it *isn't* a major city prior to WWII. The post-war loss is similar to say Buffalo or Cleveland, but prior to WWII, it wasn't that large, so DC's population today (689K) is about 4% larger than it was in 1940. (Yes it grew by about 25% between 1940 and 1950 and then dropped some from there and then started growing again in the last 10-15 years or so.) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.)

In 1910, DC had 331K people. iOTL 1920, it had 437K (the second largest Percentage growth after 1890). With the fighting in DC and the move of the Capital to New York, at most, I'd expect static growth. And DC as a Museum city (and *maybe* Universities) basically turns it into a larger version of Williamsburg, VA, so I'd expect a population shrink. More or less depends on whether the City itself remains independent or is given back to Maryland (or even back to the counties that gave land)

As for the Smithsonian, as of 1917 it had four "Buildings", The Castle, Arts and Industries, the Zoo and Natural History. The Freer Gallery to house the donations of Charles Lang Freer was under constructions. You might end up with some odd merging of the National Archives and the Smithsonian.

DC has been retroceded to Maryland. Officially, it is just Washington, Maryland, with some going so far as to call it "Washington City". There is also some debate over a complete rename to either Georgetown or Potomac City.

I don't think Washington's fate will be that of a museum city. For one thing, a lot of its potential tourist destinations were damaged or destroyed. You can't exactly sell people on "Come see the pile of rubble that used to be the White House!". In the short term, the government may deliberately try to establish industry in the city, but I'm not sure how successful that will be.

The most likely long-term fate would be that of a university town. All the universities will continue to exist, after all. This might be combined with some light industry, particularly the 1920s equivalent of "high tech" and the eventual reconstruction or restoration of old historic buildings. The Smithsonian will absorb the old assets of the National Archives (a new Union Archives is being established in New York) and might end up directly administering the "historic" buildings.

Without a doubt, DC will be much smaller in population. The last months of the Revolution saw to that. Thousands fled the city as it became a garrison town (often evicted from their homes by the Whites), and thousands more died in the battle itself.

 

[naraht]

More food for thought...









DC has been retroceded to Maryland. Officially, it is just Washington, Maryland, with some going so far as to call it "Washington City". There is also some debate over a complete rename to either Georgetown or Potomac City.

I don't think Washington's fate will be that of a museum city. For one thing, a lot of its potential tourist destinations were damaged or destroyed. You can't exactly sell people on "Come see the pile of rubble that used to be the White House!". In the short term, the government may deliberately try to establish industry in the city, but I'm not sure how successful that will be.

The most likely long-term fate would be that of a university town. All the universities will continue to exist, after all. This might be combined with some light industry, particularly the 1920s equivalent of "high tech" and the eventual reconstruction or restoration of old historic buildings. The Smithsonian will absorb the old assets of the National Archives (a new Union Archives is being established in New York) and might end up directly administering the "historic" buildings.

Without a doubt, DC will be much smaller in population. The last months of the Revolution saw to that. Thousands fled the city as it became a garrison town (often evicted from their homes by the Whites), and thousands more died in the battle itself.

(As a note, I live about 10 miles north of the Northern point of DC)

Washington City would actually flow off the tongue in the the area better than you might think. Marylanders already deal with Baltimore County and Baltimore City (which is a county equivalent according to the Maryland State Constitution.) And splitting it into the two counties that gave land would disrupt whatever recovery will occur.

In 1920, the colleges would be American University, Columbia Institution for the Deaf (Now Gallaudet) Georgetown University, George Washington University, Howard University, Trinity College (Women's)
Miner Normal School (Negro) and Wilson Normal School (White) were the Teacher's Colleges (Now both part of UDC)
Georgetown would be unlikely. It refers to a specific smaller area. (And was one of the cities within DC prior to unification). Potomac, Maryland also had existed since 1880 farther upstream beyond the city boundaries. If Washington is Problematic, may I suggest one of the names associated with DC Statehood, "New Columbia".

 

[Meshakhad]

(As a note, I live about 10 miles north of the Northern point of DC)

Washington City would actually flow off the tongue in the the area better than you might think. Marylanders already deal with Baltimore County and Baltimore City (which is a county equivalent according to the Maryland State Constitution.) And splitting it into the two counties that gave land would disrupt whatever recovery will occur.

In 1920, the colleges would be American University, Columbia Institution for the Deaf (Now Gallaudet) Georgetown University, George Washington University, Howard University, Trinity College (Women's)
Miner Normal School (Negro) and Wilson Normal School (White) were the Teacher's Colleges (Now both part of UDC)
Georgetown would be unlikely. It refers to a specific smaller area. (And was one of the cities within DC prior to unification). Potomac, Maryland also had existed since 1880 farther upstream beyond the city boundaries. If Washington is Problematic, may I suggest one of the names associated with DC Statehood, "New Columbia".

Washington City will probably stick.

 

[VB.rainer]

DC has been retroceded to Maryland. Officially, it is just Washington, Maryland, with some going so far as to call it "Washington City". There is also some debate over a complete rename to either Georgetown or Potomac City.

I don't think Washington's fate will be that of a museum city. For one thing, a lot of its potential tourist destinations were damaged or destroyed. You can't exactly sell people on "Come see the pile of rubble that used to be the White House!". In the short term, the government may deliberately try to establish industry in the city, but I'm not sure how successful that will be.

The most likely long-term fate would be that of a university town. All the universities will continue to exist, after all. This might be combined with some light industry, particularly the 1920s equivalent of "high tech" and the eventual reconstruction or restoration of old historic buildings. The Smithsonian will absorb the old assets of the National Archives (a new Union Archives is being established in New York) and might end up directly administering the "historic" buildings.

Without a doubt, DC will be much smaller in population. The last months of the Revolution saw to that. Thousands fled the city as it became a garrison town (often evicted from their homes by the Whites), and thousands more died in the battle itself.

One more thing about Washington City to keep in mind is that IOTL, buildings in DC have to deal with a height limit that was imposed in 1899 by this bill, due to the locals concerns over skyscrapers potentially being unstable and prone to collapse, which is why the skyline of DC is so unnotable aside from the Capitol building and Washington Monument. Considering they were specific to the federal district, the United States gov has been replaced by the ASU, AND that Washington was completely totaled by war, I see little reason the city would keep this restriction aside from simple preference.

This could mean that the rebuilt Washington City will look and feel bigger than OTL despite technically being smaller in population (though the allowance of skyscrapers could allow for higher pop density). Probably not like New York or other major cities, but depending on how small the population is by modern day, it could look something like Cleveland, Denver, or another state capital in a similar range.

 

[James clark micheal]

What is Gus Hall and his cohort up to?

 

[Mayukh]

What is Gus Hall and his cohort up to?

Sucking Thumbs? Doing 10 year old things?