Reds! A Revolutionary Timeline

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
@Aelita in 1933, the Iowa Class BB's were still in the earliest design phases; they wouldn't be fit for service for several years yet.
The Iowa class battleships weren't the only ships named for the state of Iowa, also America being in war time production for all of the first world war massively changes up America's roster of ships from OTL.
 
Hmm, any ships taken by the reds would likely be completely useless until Fort Monroe and Fort Story in that order were captured as those forts's heavy coastal batteries pretty much insured that no fleet is going to be to get in or out of the James river or though the Chesapeake bay without going to the bottom until they are taken, especially Fort Monroe and Fort Story which were armed with weaponry ranging from 3-inch rapid fire guns to 16-inch guns and controlled a number of sub installations as well with pretty much enough fire power to fend off entire fleets.

Beyond that fort Norfolk was occupied in 1923 as the east coast district headquarters for The Army Corps of Engineers but was more of a administrative center for them and fort wool while a coastal defense island fort didn't see much use during the interwar period unlike fort Monroe and Fort Story though I could see it being put back into use but it never had the firepower that Fort Monroe or Fort Story had even when in active service.
 
Hmm, any ships taken by the reds would likely be completely useless until Fort Monroe and Fort Story in that order were captured as those forts's heavy coastal batteries pretty much insured that no fleet is going to be to get in or out of the James river or though the Chesapeake bay without going to the bottom until they are taken, especially Fort Monroe and Fort Story which were armed with weaponry ranging from 3-inch rapid fire guns to 16-inch guns and controlled a number of sub installations as well with pretty much enough fire power to fend off entire fleets.

Beyond that fort Norfolk was occupied in 1923 as the east coast district headquarters for The Army Corps of Engineers but was more of a administrative center for them and fort wool while a coastal defense island fort didn't see much use during the interwar period unlike fort Monroe and Fort Story though I could see it being put back into use but it never had the firepower that Fort Monroe or Fort Story had even when in active service.
Certainly. But in the present situation both forts are likely to be manned with skeleton crews, since MacArthur's most pressing military needs are elsewhere, and he needs every manjack available, especially artillerymen.

And while still formidable, most of the casemate and 16-inch implacements weren't constructed until the lead up to WW2. As far as I know, Fort Story and Fort Monroe were armed with the various marks of 14-inch guns in the interwar, because funding couldn't be secured to emplace surplus 16-inch Mk 2/3s. At any rate, the Coastal Artillery soldiers just may end up siding with the Reds in the coming days, because things are not looking good for the Whites.
 
I'd imagine that "What If The British And French Intervene?" would be a popular "What If?" on this TL's version of AH.com. Certainly, it draws parallels with the lack of Franco-British intervention in the (first, ITTL) Civil War, similarly dooming the reactionary side. I'd be interested to hear what the similarities and differences between the historiography of the American Civil War between OTL and TTL.

Speaking of which, is AH genre fiction a thing ITTL?
 
I'd imagine that "What If The British And French Intervene?" would be a popular "What If?" on this TL's version of AH.com. Certainly, it draws parallels with the lack of Franco-British intervention in the (first, ITTL) Civil War, similarly dooming the reactionary side. I'd be interested to hear what the similarities and differences between the historiography of the American Civil War between OTL and TTL.

Speaking of which, is AH genre fiction a thing ITTL?
For the second question, very much yes.
 
Certainly. But in the present situation both forts are likely to be manned with skeleton crews, since MacArthur's most pressing military needs are elsewhere, and he needs every manjack available, especially artillerymen.

And while still formidable, most of the casemate and 16-inch implacements weren't constructed until the lead up to WW2. As far as I know, Fort Story and Fort Monroe were armed with the various marks of 14-inch guns in the interwar, because funding couldn't be secured to emplace surplus 16-inch Mk 2/3s. At any rate, the Coastal Artillery soldiers just may end up siding with the Reds in the coming days, because things are not looking good for the Whites.

Fort Story had all four 16 inch active service US army M1920 howitzers build which were fully deployed to Fort Story by 1923, but yes looking at it the other batteries of 16 inch guns, at this time were deployed to the defenses at pearl harbor, new York city, Boston, San Francisco and the Panama canal during the 1920s. The one main problem with those guns were they were vulnerable to air attack which wasn't really considered during the time of instillation.

As for Fort Monroe itself many its defenses and infrastructure were actually expanded and built in the period between 1898 and 1918 not in the lead up to world war II. Fort Monroe's biggest problem is by world war II many of its heavy caliber guns were now out ranged by more modern guns developed in the mid to late 1930s and worse were extremely vulnerable to air attack leading to many of its heavy caliber guns being scrapped during world war II. Also during the interwar period some of its of its batteries were pretty much on standby mode as there wasn't seen a need in peacetime to have enough men to do much more than maintain them.

One wonders what MacArthur is thinking given those forts would be pretty much the keys to the Chesapeake bay and Hampton roads though not to mention the keys to keeping lets say a hostile fleet from paying a visit to DC.
 
Last edited:
Fort Story had all four 16 inch active service US army M1920 howitzers build which were fully deployed to Fort Story by 1923, but yes looking at it the other batteries of 16 inch guns, at this time were deployed to the defenses at pearl harbor, new York city, Boston, San Francisco and the Panama canal during the 1920s. The one main problem with those guns were they were vulnerable to air attack which wasn't really considered during the time of instillation.

As for Fort Monroe itself many its defenses and infrastructure were actually expanded and built in the period between 1898 and 1918 not in the lead up to world war II. Fort Monroe's biggest problem is by world war II many of its heavy caliber guns were now out ranged by more modern guns developed in the mid to late 1930s and worse were extremely vulnerable to air attack leading to many of its heavy caliber guns being scrapped during world war II. Also during the interwar period some of its of its batteries were pretty much on standby mode as there wasn't seen a need in peacetime to have enough men to do much more than maintain them.

One wonders what MacArthur is thinking given those forts would be pretty much the keys to the Chesapeake bay and Hampton roads though not to mention the keys to keeping lets say a hostile fleet from paying a visit to DC.
Rock and a hard place really. He has some ships that are loyal to his regime, but they're needed to prevent the Pacific Fleet from traversing the Panama Canal. He's putting what forces he can to secure those ships and keeping those crews from mutinying. Anyone not essential to that is needed elsewhere to deal with the armies rapidly advancing South.

Until the mutiny there wasn't much of a threat of a naval attack on Chesapeake Bay. The only possible threat would come from the Soviet Navy, and they're quite a ways away from being able to pull off such an operation.

It's like when you patch up a leak in one place, then a pressure forces a leak somewhere else really.
 
I am sort of surprised there aren't screw both sides partisans running amok as well, especially in places like appalachia where there is a deep seated mistrust and dislike of outsiders, state and national governments owing to history of the region.
 
I am sort of surprised there aren't screw both sides partisans running amok as well, especially in places like appalachia where there is a deep seated mistrust and dislike of outsiders, state and national governments owing to history of the region.
That's probably more of an issue for the Whites than the Reds: If confronted with groups of semi-anarchist Mountain Man types who just want to be left to their own devices, the latter are likely to just shrug and say, "Fine by us, don't make trouble and we'll stay out of your hair."
 
One of the worst problems MacArthur faces are non-white American militias tearing holes in his rear lines all throughout the South, while the KKK and Sons of Liberty are a perennial problem in the Red dominated areas.
Plus it's pretty hard to get international support when you have racist thugs, sorry, "brave patriots" running around "suppressing Reds".
 
That's probably more of an issue for the Whites than the Reds: If confronted with groups of semi-anarchist Mountain Man types who just want to be left to their own devices, the latter are likely to just shrug and say, "Fine by us, don't make trouble and we'll stay out of your hair."
In an unposted speculation on the dynamics in West Virginia I hit on that guess myself; the Reds have little to lose and much to gain by permitting de facto autonomy in peripheral regions provided they won't impede the extraction of vital resources--if push comes to shove they can regard populations that are reluctant to permit even that as sitting on strategic reserves and turning to other sources, pushing the matter if and only if the cost of forgoing exploiting the blocked reserves is too high.

There never was nationwide Prohibition in this TL either, so the conflicts over booze have been restricted to local venues, state by state, and the states that have gone as far as to ban it (generally on a county by county basis at that) are those where there is widespread popular support for the idea of prohibition. This is probably very hypocritical, analogous to puritanical notions in general--people want to be on public record as supporting the "right thing to do" while in practice many of them cheat privately one way or another. But Appalachia has not been treated to the OTL phenomenon of moonshiners versus G-Men; illegal moonshiners there may be, since these states are just those which would be most in the grip of teetotal moralizing--indeed if there are several breakaway Autonomous Zones in West Virginia, other Appalachian regions and the Ozarks, I bet on paper their recognized governments are quite Bible Belt in their formal rules, and rife with individual "sinners" who voted for these rules even as they violate them. With these zones abstracted from the default regional governments (I forget whether the default carry over from US states are called "states" or what) the latter are likely to shift toward the national norm considerably.

The Reds in hillbilly country care mainly that their resources, including as transport routes, be denied to the Whites and that they be made available to the Red cause; with a democratic majority well in hand nationally their concern for the local politics of these small population regions will mainly be concerned just to make sure they are not harboring and cultivating violent reactionaries.

Mind the Reds will include some people who by background or even by current residence and occupation are native to these regions! That's a double edged sword of sorts--on one hand, it will ease negotiations and communications between the national Red movement and the dissident peoples of these regions. On the other, these individual Reds will have scores to settle locally that might distort national policy both as they skew intelligence from the regions and as they try to carry out personal vendettas. It is a question at that point of party discipline and self-discipline whether the Party can discern such hotheaded individuals, make allowances for them or just reroute them elsewhere, and whether such persons can subordinate their personal agenda to the larger picture.

Secondarily the do-gooder aspect of radicalism will be concerned to make sure no one is being unjustly exploited--if a particular autonomous zone is liable to oppress African American settlements, for instance, either the latter get their own AZ with a right to defend themselves or are simply included in the larger bailiwick of the legacy "state" or whatever it is called.

There are enough women and is enough feminist consciousness even in this first Red generation that concerns about the status of women in these zones will result in do-gooders poking their noses in and making sure the women and girls there are not being treated too badly, and can leave if they feel terrorized, and I suppose in a few cases, regional zones that seek to sit out the massive Red transformations will be found to be too reactionary and be broken up.

In this context note that in the longer run, after the civil war, the UASR is rich enough to have a strategy of recruitment of these regional peoples by generous social aid without demanding equal compensation, "from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs!" De facto the Party might wind up subsidizing backward bourgeois norms in their populist Jeffersonian form via welfare aid relieving a fundamentally capitalist regional economy of its burdens, and via social services such as support for education--which is also, handled diplomatically, a pretext to inject Red ideology in the form of schoolteachers, both from outside the region and by training up more generations of teachers in UASR level supported local teaching colleges.

I imagine factions of the national party will point out the contradictions of not confronting local society with the hard choice between Red evolution versus suffering the full costs of ongoing capitalism, and denounce such compromises. But pragmatically it is a question of scale in terms of population whether it is costly to the proletarian movement to baby these backwaters in this way, and I think pragmatically it won't cost much and the benefits, both in terms of immediate peace and reconciliation of otherwise thorny regions and the gradual recruitment of these regions to a Redder point of view will start manifesting pretty plainly. From the beginning, even regions demographically far from the norms that give rise to normal levels of Worker Party support will still have some Reds native to them as well as imported Reds working their way into the fabric of local society after all. These people can form the nuclei of a regional party cadre that will steadily rise in proportion and in absolute numbers.

But during the Civil War the Reds can afford to kick the can down the road if such a region will agree to forego aiding the Whites and make agreements with people they might regret having made later. Any subsequent revisiting of these informal treaties later formalized under UASR reorganization will happen in the context of due process of law in the context of course of strong Red political domination. To an extent, reaction that Reds dislike will be covered by the more conservative minority parties...but the latter are walking a tightrope between maintaining conservative dissents from the Red enthusiasm, and being seen as aiding downright reaction. The distinction is pragmatic, though once the UASR period proper begins formal revised common law will seek to draw some rational lines of principle between culpable reaction and tolerable conservatism. So, zones that are full of people who have misgivings about the Red program across the board will need to seek the umbrella protection of the tolerated conservative parties--I am not forgetting that the terminology of the early UASR rejects the term "conservative" as acceptable, but translating into terms more characteristic of OTL here.

In terms of their subjective consciousness of self interest, indeed we can envision large regions that one might assume would dissent from the sweeping Red program. But even these have large majorities who had OTL and here also specific grievances against the capitalist order. OTL the power of capital was too strong to simply oppose directly and check; people had to learn to make their peace with a basic order with aspects quite oppressive to them and rationalize it as they could.

I have in mind the OTL book White Collar by the sociologist C. Wright Mills, particularly the analysis of the transformation of the USA from a rural centered agrarian capitalism which the customary OTL ideology of the virtues of the free market society and the "natural aristocracy" of business successes evolved to suit. The habit we have in these late generations far removed now from the great transition from an overwhelmingly rural nation to urban-industrial of thinking of country people as inherently reactionary relates in part to the bitter discontent the industrial-capitalist liquidation of this former Jeffersonian Arcadia left in its wake. Prior to being broken and subordinated by centralized capital, which is the everyday reality of the modern USA and to which the powerless people of the peripheral zones respond to with all sorts of ideological evasions and projections, straightforward organized resistance was part of the very stuff of such movements as the People's Party. The Klan and other reactionary activists had a complicated relationship with frustrated populism, being from some analytic points of view the mere tools of the very centralizing order that so alienated them but from others being an expression of the anger and discontent of a portion of the alienated sector; I think this describes right wing faux-populism in general.

But in this TL, the mighty struggles of the 1880s-1910s are still in living memory, and the Debs-DeLeonists and other fellow traveling left radicals are widely seen as heirs to the legacies of many of these groups. People whose narrow sectional interest does not overlap the full Worker's Party agenda still share some sense of partial relationship and so it is much more thinkable that a narrower isolationist populism would see alliance with, or anyway friendly neutrality with respect to, the Reds as natural and the Reds as reasonable negotiators in good faith. Of course reactionary interests will have attempted to ideologically drive wedges between churchgoing hillbillies or prairie farmers or western mountain-Great Basin populations, but the Red base is broad enough that people who were easily convinced of the devilish nature of the Reds OTL will at least reserve judgement and decide based on specific negotiations. In turn the Reds will have a broad enough base that deeply committed Debs-DeLeonists will include people from these backgrounds in enough numbers that they always have someone handy fairly high up in Party circles who speaks their language and will talk turkey with them.

The deal the UASR can initially offer the people whose very foundations of life as they understood it were being drained away by global capitalist mechanisms, many of them anyway, is a truce in which they are encouraged to be autonomous and can maintain their older ways for a time on tolerance, while the best resources for rationally and systematically feeding the industrialized Red masses and supplying intensive industry with raw materials are found on lands that have long ago been alienated to highly centralized ownership. So if some efficiency relative to an imaginary case where 100 percent of the working masses are fully on board is lost, so be it; the rich UASR can afford the sacrifice if it buys victory in the civil war and peace in the countryside.

Gradually the peoples initially reluctant to get behind the Red bandwagon will start slipping into that parade, one by one, voting with their feet and then, as people with stronger ties and opportunities holding them to the land in turn come to be attracted to Redder ways of doing things, the remainder will start voting formally in place more and more Redly. Individual enterprises and expedient policies will gradually weave even the most autonomous zones into the national and indeed Comintern wide global fabric, and any discontents and conflicts this process brings will get a fair public hearing and explicit compromises will be brokered. But gradually they too will shift Redward, perhaps retaining some peculiar regional distinctions...for instance perhaps remaining bastions of Christian religious faith. But that would be far less a marker of a general reactionary agenda than it is OTL.
 
Plus it's pretty hard to get international support when you have racist thugs, sorry, "brave patriots" running around "suppressing Reds".
This is the era where responding to a famine in India was "dirty brown people deserved it for breeding too much" was a fairly acceptable take in a lot of circles. Britain not being ready for a major war in the 30s is a far more important cause for non-intervention than ideological sympathies.
 
The racism isnt really as much an issue in the 30's.
I don't know why you'd say that, either in reference to OTL or in the Reds!'Verse. Indeed in the ATL we've seen evidence of reasons to believe racism overall is measurably less than OTL, due to two fronts of related advance relative to OTL--at the core, the Reds themselves have retained and elaborated Internationalist anti-racism in the best traditions of the global radical left, so insofar as they are demographically significant, and they have to be to win, we have major mitigation relative to OTL. Then too the conciliatory aspects of the bourgeois run society prior to the Depression and revolutionary crisis when in ascendency have been shown to have taken steps of a degree and scale that would be delayed generations OTL, as in the California adoption of universal equal public schooling of all and the conciliatory wing of the Republicans cracking down on the Klan.

But OTL racism was such a massive and normal part of everyday US life that while things remain bad today, I hardly think it is reasonable to say racism is worse today than in the 1930.

Perhaps my confusion stems from it not being evident to me what you are comparing the US 1930s to. OTL 1930s? Admittedly not "not as much an issue" to be sure, but it is like a financial crisis where one owes $80,000 to importunate creditors who have lost all patience versus one where one owes $120,000--either way it is a total wipeout!

But it seems to me you are referencing the 1930s of both TLs to other eras of OTL, and while the '30s are less awful than the 1920s, that's because the earlier decade was the nadir of African American degradation after the Civil War. Every decade after that was less bad, but considering how bad it remains to this day, 'less of' an issue is not at all to say it does not remain a great a big burning issue still. It could be worse but that is not to say it is not bad!

Any foreigner confronted with American racism, unless they come from another European colony state and not all of them either, will be viscerally shocked by things we grow up facing as "normal." OTL this would be the case anyway. In the UASR we have been duly warned, the Jubilee does not come totally and immediately; some regions will remain reactionary and the author has even blamed the chosen African American leadership within the Party for some of this--choosing to believe the "talented ten percent" doctrines of conciliatory civil rights approaches as that of Booker T. Washington which it seems lots of African American leadership adopted OTL, and focusing resources on identifying and recruiting these rather than across the board elevation of the standards of living and security of all African Americans alike. So even the UASR is going to retain some ugly anomalies that will shock internationalist volunteers.

But OTL is relatively a cesspool of normalized racism as the Way Things Are, permeating the consciousness and perceptions of everyone to a degree that it would be hard for even quite conscientious "white" revolutionaries to fully recognize, let alone ordinary "go along to get along" people. There are plenty of people who don't recognize the racist nature of their very perceptions since it is so normalized; they believe themselves to be fair and reasonable. This is true even today, but at least today, the ideological respectability of straight unapologetic and self-conscious racism has been more or less toppled--indeed there remain dissidents who are striving to make it more respectable again and they enjoy the advantage that the unconscious, perceptual and customary racism that persists opens the door for this neo-racism as a notion to be considered seriously again. But the superstructural buttressing of the socially rooted tendencies was stripped away in the wake of both serious science robbing the hypothesis of deep racial distinctions of scientific plausibility and the Civil Rights movement attacking the legal reinforcement--what we fight about now is the need to take positive action to attack the deeply embedded biases people think they do not have.

The 1930s in either TL is plainly on the other side of that divide. In the Reds!'Verse, among Reds and among more bourgeois people pulled leftward mentally by the general drift, the dissolution of the superstructural reinforcement is well under way and will be imposed en masse post revolution--with expedient reservations and limits to buy peace in more reactionary regions to be sure. But by 1935 only dissident academies under great suspicion by mainstream institutions will be perpetuating what mainstream consensus took for simple scientific fact OTL in the same years.

OTL I don't know how you could contemplate any aspect of the 1930s and say "racism is not as much an issue" unless of course you are comparing it to the worst of a worst, either pre-Civil War or the previous decade of the 1920s.
 
I don't know why you'd say that, either in reference to OTL or in the Reds!'Verse. Indeed in the ATL we've seen evidence of reasons to believe racism overall is measurably less than OTL, due to two fronts of related advance relative to OTL--at the core, the Reds themselves have retained and elaborated Internationalist anti-racism in the best traditions of the global radical left, so insofar as they are demographically significant, and they have to be to win, we have major mitigation relative to OTL. Then too the conciliatory aspects of the bourgeois run society prior to the Depression and revolutionary crisis when in ascendency have been shown to have taken steps of a degree and scale that would be delayed generations OTL, as in the California adoption of universal equal public schooling of all and the conciliatory wing of the Republicans cracking down on the Klan.

But OTL racism was such a massive and normal part of everyday US life that while things remain bad today, I hardly think it is reasonable to say racism is worse today than in the 1930.

Perhaps my confusion stems from it not being evident to me what you are comparing the US 1930s to. OTL 1930s? Admittedly not "not as much an issue" to be sure, but it is like a financial crisis where one owes $80,000 to importunate creditors who have lost all patience versus one where one owes $120,000--either way it is a total wipeout!

But it seems to me you are referencing the 1930s of both TLs to other eras of OTL, and while the '30s are less awful than the 1920s, that's because the earlier decade was the nadir of African American degradation after the Civil War. Every decade after that was less bad, but considering how bad it remains to this day, 'less of' an issue is not at all to say it does not remain a great a big burning issue still. It could be worse but that is not to say it is not bad!

Any foreigner confronted with American racism, unless they come from another European colony state and not all of them either, will be viscerally shocked by things we grow up facing as "normal." OTL this would be the case anyway. In the UASR we have been duly warned, the Jubilee does not come totally and immediately; some regions will remain reactionary and the author has even blamed the chosen African American leadership within the Party for some of this--choosing to believe the "talented ten percent" doctrines of conciliatory civil rights approaches as that of Booker T. Washington which it seems lots of African American leadership adopted OTL, and focusing resources on identifying and recruiting these rather than across the board elevation of the standards of living and security of all African Americans alike. So even the UASR is going to retain some ugly anomalies that will shock internationalist volunteers.

But OTL is relatively a cesspool of normalized racism as the Way Things Are, permeating the consciousness and perceptions of everyone to a degree that it would be hard for even quite conscientious "white" revolutionaries to fully recognize, let alone ordinary "go along to get along" people. There are plenty of people who don't recognize the racist nature of their very perceptions since it is so normalized; they believe themselves to be fair and reasonable. This is true even today, but at least today, the ideological respectability of straight unapologetic and self-conscious racism has been more or less toppled--indeed there remain dissidents who are striving to make it more respectable again and they enjoy the advantage that the unconscious, perceptual and customary racism that persists opens the door for this neo-racism as a notion to be considered seriously again. But the superstructural buttressing of the socially rooted tendencies was stripped away in the wake of both serious science robbing the hypothesis of deep racial distinctions of scientific plausibility and the Civil Rights movement attacking the legal reinforcement--what we fight about now is the need to take positive action to attack the deeply embedded biases people think they do not have.

The 1930s in either TL is plainly on the other side of that divide. In the Reds!'Verse, among Reds and among more bourgeois people pulled leftward mentally by the general drift, the dissolution of the superstructural reinforcement is well under way and will be imposed en masse post revolution--with expedient reservations and limits to buy peace in more reactionary regions to be sure. But by 1935 only dissident academies under great suspicion by mainstream institutions will be perpetuating what mainstream consensus took for simple scientific fact OTL in the same years.

OTL I don't know how you could contemplate any aspect of the 1930s and say "racism is not as much an issue" unless of course you are comparing it to the worst of a worst, either pre-Civil War or the previous decade of the 1920s.

Isn't AS much an issue.

This is the golden age of colonialism, American racism will not deter foreign support, when said support doesnt mind the racism.
 
Isn't AS much an issue.

This is the golden age of colonialism, American racism will not deter foreign support, when said support doesnt mind the racism.
Radical leftists are the potential supporters; they mind the racism of their home societies though of course the bourgeois societies they are militantly trying to transform would be hypocrites to condemn it save for magnitude.

I do think US style racism was pretty extreme. It is one thing to have arrogant attitudes towards "the natives." It is quite another to develop the sort of elaborated prohibitions and humiliations and invidious divisions US society was mired in.

I'm not trying to moralize, exactly. Of course every society produces its imperatives due to deep structural reasons and all of them do something that looks absurd seen from outside. (We can hope the UASR will pass rational muster as it shakes down and this helps the Soviet Union overcome its own absurdities. But we should not be too amazed if even the ATL Comintern peoples are a little nutty on some points).

But I am saying American practices were pretty grotesque even measured against the benchmark of colonialism. Against practices like the outrages in the Belgian Congo, maybe not...but relatively few people in the European colonial systems would have wanted to routinely participate in such extreme brutality. That it was less outrageous in most colonies than the American domestic racial scene is not to say they were not evil.

Surely you have a valid point that the various international brigade volunteers are not total babes in the woods and will not be too surprised at American realities-between denouncing their own mother societies' wacky cruelties and world wide infamy of how America is, they will be a bit inured and prepared.

I still think they will be surprised at how petty and extensive American racism is, face to face. Of course they are there, among other things, to help change it.

The awkward bit will be if American comrades are less reconstructed individually than they ought to be.
 
I am not sure I can honestly say that US style racism was say more extreme than some of what happened in parts of the british empire like south Africa, Australia or Canada or what the Germans had gotten up to in their colonies before losing them during world war one given some of the history I am aware of from those places.
 
I am not sure I can honestly say that US style racism was say more extreme than some of what happened in parts of the british empire like south Africa, Australia or Canada or what the Germans had gotten up to in their colonies before losing them during world war one given some of the history I am aware of from those places.
Yeah, I specifically mentioned being from another European settler colony as an exception...Algeria was pretty nasty too I think.
 
This is after a WWI that was worse and saw more US involvement than in IOTL. IOTL US involvement saw enough african americans in the fighting that when they came home, they wanted to be treated better and that contributed to the red summer. In this...

Man, I almost feel bad for the South. They have to be dealing with the mother of all insurgency problems- back during this time, plenty of states in the south were majority african american still, especially in rural areas.

Quick question: will the UASR's military be integrated? Is there a version of the 761st Tank Battalion or the Tuskegee Airmen in this timeline's version of WW2? Does the UASR intervene to help Abyssinia when it gets invaded by italy, given how IOTL African-Americans really supported the Ethiopians and some volunteer soldiers from black communities in America and Europe actually made it to Ethiopia to fight against the Italians.

Further question: Just how fucked is the KKK and Jim Crow laws once the UASR wins? And what happens with decolonization in Africa?
 
Quick question: will the UASR's military be integrated?
It pretty much already is. The main core of what's going to be the WFRA/N/AF is crystallizing around the big grassroots people's militias like the Bonus Army and the Spartacists, which are pretty damn integrated, especially in Southern and urban organized units. There's some growing pains as the more bourgie bits of the old armed forces get assimilated into the new system, but it goes a hell of a lot faster and less painful than OTL.
 
Back
Top