Crimson Banners Fly: The Rise of the American Left

Yeah, I doubt a socialist commonwealth would themselves after Columbus. Naming after the Americas would be the likely thing or come up with something (Maybe Panam?)
 
Last edited:
Would a socialist commonwealth really name themselves after Christopher Columbus though?
Yeah, I doubt a socialist commonwealth would themselves after Columbus. Naming after the Americas would be the likely thing or come up with something (Maybe Panam?)
I doubt the name is literal. It sounds more to me like an artistic title from the author indicating an International led by the Americas (or America in particular) than its actual name.
 
If the US actually joins the war, the East is going to be very interesting.

First Japanese-American War coming up?

Or would an anti-entente USA instead push them against the British territories in the east? Singapore would be a more sustainable prize than anything they to for from the US.
 
War with the British would mean dealing with Canada... ho boy, this is gonna end painfully unless the Union pulls out every trick they could think of.

Can't think of many except making deals with the First Peoples favorable to them (they may or may not leverage that with the British to get Canada to treat them better). Same with Australia and New Zealand.
 
Of all the potential twists, this is one of the least expected. And yet? It's plausible - without Wilson's wariness over a potential future German-dominated world order, without an Anglo-American rapprochement in the past few decades (as happened OTL), and with Roosevelt's platform of increased trade with Germany and his willingness to be more assertive in international relations, I can see how the issue of British interdiction could cause a diplomatic crisis. If this escalates into overt American support for the Central Powers, and eventually war, I can see how this would be less popular, from the outset, than intervention on the Allies' side, given cultural ties with Britain. Then again, sources of tension OTL, like Irish-American opinion on home rule + conscription, could expand into direct American aid, for example with an alt-Easter rising.
 
And also, there is the issue of German war crimes, the "rape of Belgium". How does it echo in the US compared to the issue of trade with Germany ? With hindsight, one can't really put up both the rape of Belgium and the sinking of the Yellow Rose on same level, but that's just hindsight. There is for sure some potential for anti war news outlets to use the Rape to outweigh the cry over the Yellow Rose sinking and argue war for the sake of trade with a nation that has just committed greater war crimes in Belgium, not to mention the use of chemical weapons at Ypres later on.
 
Last edited:
And also, there is the issue of German war crimes, the "rape of Belgium". How does it echo in the US compared to the issue of trade with Germany ? With hindsight, one can't really put up both the rape of Belgium and the sinking of the Yellow Rose on same level, but that's just hindsight. There is for sure some potential for anti war news outlets to use the Rape to outweigh the cry over the Yellow Rose sinking and argue war for the sake of trade with a nation that has just committed greater war crimes in Belgium, not to mention the use of chemical weapons at Ypres later on.
The intrests of nations will alwayse outwiegh moral issues, thats just how geopolitcs work. US newspapers could easily wine just as badly about British treatment of the Irish.
 
Part 6: Chapter XX - Page 133
parade.png

San Francisco Preparedness Parade, June 2nd, 1915 - Source: SF Chronicle

News of the Yellow Rose soon reached American shores. A horrified public had trouble comprehending the disaster. Humanists and intellectuals perhaps disbelieved the story, but learning of the tragedy was unavoidable. Plastered across every major newspaper read some variation of the same headline, accompanied by either a photograph of the ship itself or of its captain. The New York Times printed, "Yellow Rose Sunk By Royal Navy, 34 Aboard Believed Dead," and followed with a smaller subtitle remarking, "A Grave Crisis Is At Hand." Indeed, the unjust murder of American citizens did not merely invoke alarm, but immense anger at the perpetrators for ordering the assault. Editorials universally condemned the officers responsible for the deaths at sea, yet hundreds of publications took the extra step in insulting the British government for instituting the blockade to begin with.

The American answer to the destruction of the Yellow Rose in the English Channel was outrage and acrimony as much, if not more so, than it was grief and sadness. Not entirely unlike the Austrian knee-jerk reaction to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the people themselves demanded retribution. A wave of anti-British emotion washed over the United States at a level unseen in a generation. Articles from reputable sources freely referred to sailors aboard the blockading vessels as, "pirates," and "barbarians." The Nation famously named the event, "a deed for which a Hun would blush, a Turk be ashamed, and a Barbary pirate apologize." No longer were concerns about the blockade limited to commercial interests - the policy of interdiction was now personal.

Insofar as political leaders responded, they certainly proved more divided than the public at large. The Great War saturated political discourse since, at the latest, the debate over Falconer-Colt, and now that debate overshadowed all other issues. Five full months of preparation lessened war anxiety to an extent and left the country in a far better position, militarily, that it would have been otherwise. Few in Washington wanted U.S. involvement in the affairs of Europe, but at least the Army no longer upkept nineteenth century weaponry as it did at the dawn of the 1910s. Democrats who had fought the president on Preparedness struggled to gain a worthwhile foothold in the foreign policy debates moving forward. Former President Bryan consistently advised against the Roosevelt position on war readiness and stressed the need to establish diplomatic channels as an alternative. His fledgling Commoner, reduced by 1913 to a milquetoast, pro-Democratic paper, printed each week a heartfelt plea for arbitration. "Militarism will not stop militarism," it read.

Bryan and fellow war-wary advocates like Governor Woodrow Wilson labored twice as hard to silence the march to war after the sinking of the Yellow Rose. Before British authorities delivered their non-defense on the atrocity and hours prior to the official presidential statement, Bryan spoke to a gathering of the neutral Friends of Peace association. He indicated sorrow for the lives lost and empathy with those desirous of revenge, but urged a calm, measured counter. "Accountability can be achieved," he explained, "without rushing headlong into war." Millions of Europeans were already slaughtered in the bloody overseas conflict, lost in the spray of machine-gun fire and artillery shells. Europe was at a stalemate wrought with deplorable trench-warfare and poison gas attacks. No reasonable American, Bryan thought, could possibly crave embroilment in such a fiasco. That too quickly became the mindset of pacifists and proponents of international cooperation, but Roosevelt disagreed.

British officials and representatives reportedly touched base with the Roosevelt Administration on the morning of May 1st, regretting the sinking of the commercial ship but stopping short of apologizing or renouncing their ongoing naval policies. U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom Paul Drennan Cravath warned President Roosevelt that the British were unwilling to alter the state of their blockade. According to Cravath's testimonials, Prime Minister H.H. Asquith spared few words for the 34 American deaths, and in fact planned to coordinate with the recently created War Propaganda Bureau to frame the incident in a manner that reflected negatively on the United States. Cravath, as well as the presidential Cabinet, implored the president exhaust diplomacy. "[Wood and Garfield] advised against a sudden, emotion-driven reply," wrote Ackerman, "but one does have trouble reasoning with the unreasonable. Roosevelt itched for war, and he rebuffed every point against declaration. If Wood brought up the German advance in Belgium, Roosevelt retorted with reports of French and British atrocities in occupied Greek territory. When asked about the unstable U.S. economy, the president could answer that the recovery counted on the success of Germany. The dominoes fell one by one, and perhaps all it took was a smidge of disrespect by Asquith to push him over the brink."


Gentlemen of the Congress.
In their respective lifetimes, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln confronted crises of different types, and therefore in any given crisis it is now the example of one, now the example of the other, which it is most essential for us to follow. Each stood absolutely for the National ideal, for a full Union and of all our people, perpetual and indestructible, and for the full employment of our entire collective strength to any extent that was necessary in order to meet the nation's needs. The lesson of nationalism and therefore of efficient action through the national government is taught by both careers. At the present moment we need to apply this principle in our social and industrial life to a degree far greater than was the case in either Washington's day or Lincoln's.
Washington loved peace. Perhaps Lincoln loved peace even more. But when the choice was between peace and righteousness, both alike trod undaunted the dark path that led through terror and suffering and the imminent menace of death to the shining goal beyond. We remember that Lincoln said that a government dedicated to freedom should not perish from the earth. Our sacred past guides us to this day. Peace cannot reign where evil prevails. Freedom cannot breathe when tyranny looms near. On the 30th of April, we as a nation endured tremendous loss at the bequest of a tyrannical policy distilled by pirates on the open sea. American lives and property were ruthlessly and without provocation stolen away in a senselessly cruel and unspeakable act that exhibits an innate threat on our independence. This belligerence, an inhumane assault on neutrality and our right to free commerce, has made neutrality impossible.
Theodore Roosevelt, War Message to Congress, May 8th, 1915

At once, upon learning that diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom were formally severed, sprawling Defense Club branches, the pro-war Patriotic Society for American Security, the munitions-minded Navy League, and other such groups sprang into action. Congress, they understood, would only concur with the president on the need for war if swayed to do so by the people. Inspired by the enormously influential, Bryan-esque style of presidential campaigning, these groups initiated mammoth-sized parades featuring jingoistic speakers in the same vein as Albert Beveridge and his "March of the Flag." Processions donning patriotic themes reminiscent of Independence Day (Nostalgic banners with depictions of the Founding Fathers, the Betsy Ross flag, etc) flooded the streets of St. Louis, Chicago, Sacramento, New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., throughout May of 1915. In the words of one propagandist, "We're no strangers to British subjugation. Our forefathers wrestled hitherto for independence and for economic liberty from those blasted redcoats, and now we do the same. [....] Hail, Columbia, now and forever, land that I love."
 
Ooof... on the knife's edge now.

Though they'd realize that they'd have to deal with Canada in the war and afte, so they have to consider that. I could see them try to make an accord to Canada and they focus on the Caribbean.
 
Well, at least Japan is still a British ally in this war though, so the Americans may have a nasty surprise in the Pacific if they go to war, and may even conquer Hawaii this time around, officially to restore the independence here.

Depending on the chronology and on Italian still switching sides to the Entente, the British still have a good window to defeat German and American fleets in detail, but in the immediate, besides diverting British efforts, that is not going to relieve the Germans much since the British Isles stand in the way, and the British have at least the support of the French and Japanese fleets.
 
Also as a matter of war crimes, I wonder how Roosevelt is going to answer to the Armenian genocide here ITTL. That's going to be much harder to answer it with another atrocity from the Entente as he did with Belgium.
 
Yeah, that will be something that I think Teddy needs to be careful on.
Altenately, maybe it'd be less of siding with the Germans and more a co-belligerent sort of war.

Like, wonder what is Teddy's plan for Canada...
 
Ooof... on the knife's edge now.

Though they'd realize that they'd have to deal with Canada in the war and afte, so they have to consider that. I could see them try to make an accord to Canada and they focus on the Caribbean.
America is an order of magnitude larger then Canada. Ottowa will fall in a few months. Canada will be overun and annexed.
 
America is an order of magnitude larger then Canada. Ottowa will fall in a few months. Canada will be overun and annexed.
Worse, it'll royally fuck up the Canadian war effort. Either they send off vast amounts of troops and equipment to France, which wins them brownie points with the Empire but is gonna go down poorly with the domestic populace, or vice versa.

It should also be noted that at this point in time, the Canadian Minister of War is this "genius", who was very "Anglo Canada uber alles" with regards to their military, and well....
 
Top