Reds! A Revolutionary Timeline

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
So basically the USAR has been an overall promoter of personal freedoms which has had an effect on the comintern as well? While also providing technology and economic assistance for the other members?
By 2015, the USSR (which ITL never had the population implosion of OTL and has a population similar to that of the UASR) is basically nearly on the same footing as the UASR. Let that sink in for a moment. The world now has two America's worth economic and military might. That is not counting in China.
 
Does the nationalities politics of the USSR and its evolutions in the 1930s diverge significantly from OTL? Ie Is there a redefinition of the number of recognized nationalities in the USSR, specificaly ethnic persecution against diaspora or border peoples, this kind of stuff?
 
What is the state of Psychiatry and therapy for mental health issues in the 21st century, if I might ask?
I would think there is pretty much a hard line. People who can become productive workers likely get a fair bit of help and accommodation in order to get through whatever issues they have or tracked to jobs where their particular disabilities can be an advantage. On the other hand, people who are actually disabled by their mental health issues are unlikely to get much in the way of assistance. I am highly unsure if there will ever be a move away from the asylum system for the mentally disabled. But then again, this is guesswork, built on workerism as a driving ideology.
 
I would think there is pretty much a hard line. People who can become productive workers likely get a fair bit of help and accommodation in order to get through whatever issues they have or tracked to jobs where their particular disabilities can be an advantage. On the other hand, people who are actually disabled by their mental health issues are unlikely to get much in the way of assistance. I am highly unsure if there will ever be a move away from the asylum system for the mentally disabled. But then again, this is guesswork, built on workerism as a driving ideology.
How are we defining "mentally disabled" here? Because if they're really serious about disability accommodations for the disabled then the number of people who can't do anything productive at all is going to be pretty low, and mostly consist of those for whom a place in a well-run and adequately funded asylum would probably be better than giving them a disability pension and leaving them to their own devices apart from the social worker coming to visit once a week as we do here in quasi-social democratic Britain.
 
How are we defining "mentally disabled" here? Because if they're really serious about disability accommodations for the disabled then the number of people who can't do anything productive at all is going to be pretty low, and mostly consist of those for whom a place in a well-run and adequately funded asylum would probably be better than giving them a disability pension and leaving them to their own devices apart from the social worker coming to visit once a week as we do here in quasi-social democratic Britain.
This is something that likely shifts over time with medical innovation and better understandings of what can be done, and in the type of work needed. Similarly defining which symptom packages are actually disabled versus the able to work is difficult on a large scale, because while not every case is unique, they do range pretty widely. But at the same time, I have my doubts as to whether the asylums would be well funded. Mental illness, outside of damage, is something that a lot of people find hard to really get.
 
How are we defining "mentally disabled" here? Because if they're really serious about disability accommodations for the disabled then the number of people who can't do anything productive at all is going to be pretty low, and mostly consist of those for whom a place in a well-run and adequately funded asylum would probably be better than giving them a disability pension and leaving them to their own devices apart from the social worker coming to visit once a week as we do here in quasi-social democratic Britain.
I do not like the asylum system. The horror stories are real and nothing will persuade me otherwise. Because it was a horrendous source of abuse in OTL. Both in the Soviet Union and the US. It also doesn't solve in-between types. People who are "able to work", true, but are constantly dreamy, forgetting themselves and so on and it looks like they are trying to be lazy or 'sabotage their coworkers' from other peoples perspective. Or people unable to work at all but still able to take care of themselves to some extent, who would feel horribly and suffer by being surrounded constantly by outright mental cases.

Yes. I have a mild-to-average level of autism. I was never able to have ANY kind of relationship outside my own parents, which is being EXTREMELY strained, and I see that something is terribly wrong with me. This goes WELL beyond just being unable to work in a capitalist economy (fuck that). I am unable to have a normal relationship with other people. I haven't ever had a girlfriend and I am over thirty. And the thing is? I am a Transhumanist...especially when it comes to altering the mindstates...because while some people, especially the healthy (who do not know shit about living with such a condition) and those who build their entire identities around having the ailment will scream bloody murder at me for suggesting something like that...fine, fuck them, they can stay however they want to stay. Me? Absolutely not.

So. If Eclipse Phase style psychosurgery ever becomes feasible? Sign me the fuck up!
 
Last edited:
Personally, I find it hard to believe that Stalin (and the nomenklatura in general that has been enabling him) would just see the error of his ways because of the UASR. On the surface, it would be fine, with state visits, speeches about the virtues of communist internationalism, cultural and scientific exchanges and so on, but the history of the UASR-USSR relations between the Revolution and the WW2 will read like a thriller. When dealing with the allies, Stalin was too astute a diplomat to let the USSR be sidelined.

For starters, I think that it would control its image abroad even more than id dit OTL. Both the Americans coming to the USSR and Soviet citizens going to the UASR will be thorougly vetted. For every American visitor able to see what the Soviet regime has become and shout about it from the roofs, there will be five dyed in the wool Stalinists, four cynics who see what happens but think that it's better to do what's expedient than what's right, and eighty dupes content to be drip-fed by Stalinist propaganda and orchestrated field trips (think Walter Duranty).

The image of the American revolution formed by the Soviet media for the internal consumption will be rather interesting, too - features most close to the Soviet ones will be lionized, the rest will be deliberately misinterpreted to look exactly the same as their Soviet counterparts, explained as something transitional on the way to Communism, or pointedly ignored.

As a side note concerning the numerous Soviet delegations in America, I'd expect that a sizeable part of them will be the GRU and GUGB operatives working undercover - to keep the rest in line, to plant agents of influence, and to do whatever ordinary spies are doing (even if the UASR keeps no secrets from the Soviet 'elder sister', Stalin will never believe it).

In the Comintern, Stalin has lost the majority, but that doesn't mean he would quietly accept that. I see at least two ways for the Soviets to regain the majority: campaigning against the individual parties' reunion with the factions that have split earlier (as it has already happened to the Communist party of Spain) and supporting the creation of communist parties in the colonies (something that happened IOTL, but here, it will be done to a greater extent), in the hopes that their leadership will be pro-Soviet rather than pro-American.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I find it hard to believe that Stalin (and the nomenklatura in general that has been enabling him) would just see the error of his ways because of the UASR. On the surface, it would be fine, with state visits, speeches about the virtues of communist internationalism, cultural and scientific exchanges and so on, but the history of the UASR-USSR relations between the Revolution and the WW2 will read like a thriller. When dealing with the allies, Stalin was too astute a diplomat to let the USSR be sidelined.

For starters, I think that it would control its image abroad even more than id dit OTL. Both the Americans coming to the USSR and Soviet citizens going to the UASR will be thorougly vetted. For every American visitor able to see what the Soviet regime has become and shout about it from the roofs, there will be five dyed in the wool Stalinists, four cynics who see what happens but think that it's better to do what's expedient than what's right, and eighty dupes content to be drip-fed by Stalinist propaganda and orchestrated field trips (think Walter Duranty).

The image of the American revolution formed by the Soviet media for the internal consumption will be rather interesting, too - features most close to the Soviet ones will be lionized, the rest will be deliberately misinterpreted to look exactly the same as their Soviet counterparts, explained as something transitional on the way to Communism, or pointedly ignored.

As a side note concerning the numerous Soviet delegations in America, I'd expect that a sizeable part of them will be the GRU and GUGB operatives working undercover - to keep the rest in line, to plant agents of influence, and to do whatever ordinary spies are doing (even if the UASR keeps no secrets from the Soviet 'elder sister', Stalin will never believe it).

In the Comintern, Stalin has lost the majority, but that doesn't mean he would quietly accept that. I see at least two way for the Soviets to regain the majority: campaigning against the individual parties' reunion with the factions that have split earlier (as it has already happened to the Communist party of Spain) and support the creation of communist parties in the colonies (something that happened IOTL, but here, it will be done to a greater extent), in the hopes that their leadership will be pro-Soviet rather than pro-American.

Just after the revolution, this is likely to be somewhat close to that, though Stalin is already weaker because his socialism in one country is contested by the fact that the American communists are doing well and don't let the comintern control them like it did to European communist parties OTL.

But they have enemies, and fighting together is likely to relax that, especially after Stalin is out of the picture.
 
With freedom of movement (and millions of USAR servicemembers on Soviet soil once the second world war kicks off) keeping all of the secrecy gets a lot harder. A lot of it can probably be hidden, but not all of it. Secondly, the USAR has a lot of economic levers to pull to get communist parties around the world to join up with them. While they may have aligned with the USSR or China, the USAR is significantly larger than both of them. If not in terms of population, then in terms of economic output, at least initially.
 
With freedom of movement (and millions of USAR servicemembers on Soviet soil once the second world war kicks off) keeping all of the secrecy gets a lot harder. A lot of it can probably be hidden, but not all of it. Secondly, the USAR has a lot of economic levers to pull to get communist parties around the world to join up with them. While they may have aligned with the USSR or China, the USAR is significantly larger than both of them. If not in terms of population, then in terms of economic output, at least initially.

Their point seem to be that the USSR wouldn't go for freedom of movement without control. And I think that may be correct at least until the world war.
 
Their point seem to be that the USSR wouldn't go for freedom of movement without control. And I think that may be correct at least until the world war.
The USSR desperately needs American assistance to industrialize, knowing that (unlike with the UASR) they're facing a legitimate threat of invasion by reactionary forces. They can't afford to restrict freedom of movement.
 
The USSR desperately needs American assistance to industrialize, knowing that (unlike with the UASR) they're facing a legitimate threat of invasion by reactionary forces. They can't afford to restrict freedom of movement.

Do they know they're the frontline tho?

Remember, basically until the first shot is fired, everyone think this is going to be Britain vs America, the rematch.

Also, leaders can be pigheaded when their own power is at stakes.
 
Personally, I find it hard to believe that Stalin (and the nomenklatura in general that has been enabling him) would just see the error of his ways because of the UASR. On the surface, it would be fine, with state visits, speeches about the virtues of communist internationalism, cultural and scientific exchanges and so on, but the history of the UASR-USSR relations between the Revolution and the WW2 will read like a thriller. When dealing with the allies, Stalin was too astute a diplomat to let the USSR be sidelined.

For starters, I think that it would control its image abroad even more than id dit OTL. Both the Americans coming to the USSR and Soviet citizens going to the UASR will be thorougly vetted. For every American visitor able to see what the Soviet regime has become and shout about it from the roofs, there will be five dyed in the wool Stalinists, four cynics who see what happens but think that it's better to do what's expedient than what's right, and eighty dupes content to be drip-fed by Stalinist propaganda and orchestrated field trips (think Walter Duranty).
I don't think it's so much that Stalin would "see the error of his ways", but more that with the UASR providing a rather important counter-example to the idea that "counter-revolutionary propaganda" has to be suppressed by force and that anyone who takes a more moderate position (or in rare cases a more extreme one) than the official Central Committee line is a potential fifth-columnist for the capitalists he's going to have a harder time building his own base of power. Especially bercause the Americans can play that game as well: Tours by visiting delegations from the Soviet Union might be quite as meticulously stage-managed, in fact if the international relations team are smart they'll be honest about the areas where there's still a lot of work to be done because Russians don't appreciate being bullshitted any more than the rest of the human race, but a lot of work is still going to go into selling the UASR as an example to emulate.
 
Just after the revolution, this is likely to be somewhat close to that, though Stalin is already weaker because his socialism in one country is contested by the fact that the American communists are doing well and don't let the comintern control them like it did to European communist parties OTL.

But they have enemies, and fighting together is likely to relax that, especially after Stalin is out of the picture.
Yes, I'm speaking about how things are 'now' (i.e. mid-late 30s). Unless @Aelita doesn't have a retcon in mind, there will be a massive game changer concerning the USSR internal policies and the American influence on these.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I'm speaking about how things are 'now' (i.e. mid-late 30s). Unless @Aelita doesn't have a retcon in mind, there will be a massive game changer concerning the USSR internal policies and the American influence on these.

The update probably glosses over the progressive build up towards making the USSR accept free movement.

It's true that there's a lot America can offer.
 
Personally, I find it hard to believe that Stalin (and the nomenklatura in general that has been enabling him) would just see the error of his ways because of the UASR. On the surface, it would be fine, with state visits, speeches about the virtues of communist internationalism, cultural and scientific exchanges and so on, but the history of the UASR-USSR relations between the Revolution and the WW2 will read like a thriller. When dealing with the allies, Stalin was too astute a diplomat to let the USSR be sidelined.

For starters, I think that it would control its image abroad even more than id dit OTL. Both the Americans coming to the USSR and Soviet citizens going to the UASR will be thorougly vetted. For every American visitor able to see what the Soviet regime has become and shout about it from the roofs, there will be five dyed in the wool Stalinists, four cynics who see what happens but think that it's better to do what's expedient than what's right, and eighty dupes content to be drip-fed by Stalinist propaganda and orchestrated field trips (think Walter Duranty).

The image of the American revolution formed by the Soviet media for the internal consumption will be rather interesting, too - features most close to the Soviet ones will be lionized, the rest will be deliberately misinterpreted to look exactly the same as their Soviet counterparts, explained as something transitional on the way to Communism, or pointedly ignored.

As a side note concerning the numerous Soviet delegations in America, I'd expect that a sizeable part of them will be the GRU and GUGB operatives working undercover - to keep the rest in line, to plant agents of influence, and to do whatever ordinary spies are doing (even if the UASR keeps no secrets from the Soviet 'elder sister', Stalin will never believe it).

In the Comintern, Stalin has lost the majority, but that doesn't mean he would quietly accept that. I see at least two ways for the Soviets to regain the majority: campaigning against the individual parties' reunion with the factions that have split earlier (as it has already happened to the Communist party of Spain) and supporting the creation of communist parties in the colonies (something that happened IOTL, but here, it will be done to a greater extent), in the hopes that their leadership will be pro-Soviet rather than pro-American.
There's definitely a lot going under the hood, and the problem Stalin faces is that the scale of Soviet-American economic cooperation makes it impossible to hide forever fundamental weaknesses in the Soviet economy. Things that were generally only known by the state security apparatus are now open secrets. There are a lot of Americans working in the Soviet Union, each one being a potential diplomatic incident, and conversely there are a large number of Soviet citizens that are going to America for education/training.

In OTL, the broader communist movement basically had no alternative but the line provided by the USSR. Most had their misgivings even while they upheld the general line in public, leading to the rupture that occurred with Khrushchev's secret speech. But at the end of the day there was no alternative. It made it very seductive to rationalize everything away, because the alternative was making concessions to the enemy.

TTL, at the very least, this is not necessary. Even within the Soviet Union, there are alternatives. It's important to remember that Stalin's apotheosis as autocrat was a decade and a half long process. The American revolution is just before some very key events which will have a wildly different context and course ITTL.
 
Do they know they're the frontline tho?
By virtue of America's geography (vast oceans on either side, weak countries to north and south, huge landmass with all of the resources required to be self sufficient if required) it is virtually impossible to realistically consider invading America.

The logistical nightmare alone is as strong a wall as any fortress. True, Britain is one of the very few nations capable of even entertaining the notion, but America is also the only nation in the world capable of realistically dethroning the Royal Navy as King of the seas.

So, if a war were to break out, the logical first target would have to be America's weaker allies. That means the Latin American countries, of course, but it also means the USSR.

Stalin isn't an idiot. He knows that, if a war breaks out, his options would be A) join his ally and hope for the best, or B) sit it out and be next, either because the capitalists were strong enough to actually take Fortress America or because America won't help after such a betrayal. In other words, maybe die now or certainly die a little later. Therefore he needs to industrialize as fast as he can, therefore he's in no position to make onerous demands of the Americans. The Americans can't exactly dictate terms, they want allies too, but anyone can tell upon which of the two countries the balance of power rests.
 
By virtue of America's geography (vast oceans on either side, weak countries to north and south, huge landmass with all of the resources required to be self sufficient if required) it is virtually impossible to realistically consider invading America.

The logistical nightmare alone is as strong a wall as any fortress. True, Britain is one of the very few nations capable of even entertaining the notion, but America is also the only nation in the world capable of realistically dethroning the Royal Navy as King of the seas.

So, if a war were to break out, the logical first target would have to be America's weaker allies. That means the Latin American countries, of course, but it also means the USSR.

Stalin isn't an idiot. He knows that, if a war breaks out, his options would be A) join his ally and hope for the best, or B) sit it out and be next, either because the capitalists were strong enough to actually take Fortress America or because America won't help after such a betrayal. In other words, maybe die now or certainly die a little later. Therefore he needs to industrialize as fast as he can, therefore he's in no position to make onerous demands of the Americans. The Americans can't exactly dictate terms, they want allies too, but anyone can tell upon which of the two countries the balance of power rests.


Nah the more logical battlegrounds in a British-American war are Canada (from the reds) and the sealanes (from the blues). In all likelihood, such a war would be fought in the drydocks more than the trenches.

America isn't going to abandon the USSR either, even if Stalin drag his feet on freedom of movement a bit.
 
With the above, I was more thinking about setting up a scenario where basically the OTL audience reading this would get Mr./Ms. Exposition explaining to a Watson the Reds! world from the position of the Watson being someone a modern young audience could relate to (Berni Bro/Sis, AOC Fanboy/Fangirl) while at the same time being someone having zero clues about the inner working of a genuinely socialist/communist state (aka: being basically seen in-universe as an ignorant extremist at best and dangerous reactionary at worst)...

...which is hilarious. Because in our universe, someone on the progressive left of the Democratic party is considered SOCIALIST/STALINISTS/Ultra-Leftist by the corporate mass media, while in Reds! verse they would be screamed at for being Fascist-enabling corporatocrats/Hard Rightwingers. Which is another interesting point: Such an individual would be used to getting ridiculed and screamed at, which means that he or she would continue to ask questions and not rather shut up. Forcing Mr./Ms. exposition to further elaborate.
Even in a Far Left "Soviet" America, the Dems can't catch a break.
 
Nah the more logical battlegrounds in a British-American war are Canada (from the reds) and the sealanes (from the blues). In all likelihood, such a war would be fought in the drydocks more than the trenches.

America isn't going to abandon the USSR either, even if Stalin drag his feet on freedom of movement a bit.
The war in Canada would be over within a month at most. 90% of the population lives within a hundred miles of the border and its just impossible to defend nine thousand kilometers of border.

Once Canada was taken out Britain would have to look for alternate means to land troops in the New World. Part of that would be building the navy, of course, but America can build it faster and longer so that's not a solution. That's where taking out America's allies comes into play - even America can't fight the entire world forever.

Hence why the USSR would inevitably see combat before the UASR.
 
Things that were generally only known by the state security apparatus are now open secrets. There are a lot of Americans working in the Soviet Union, each one being a potential diplomatic incident, and conversely there are a large number of Soviet citizens that are going to America for education/training.
OTL, the USSR invited about 12,000 American engineers (at least there were 12,000 offers published by Amtorg) and still managed to keep the façade. You really need amping these numbers up (and the decision makers in the UASR wishing to risk relationship with the Soviet Union over what is largely the Soviet internal affairs) to get the effect you're speaking about. As for the Soviet people sent to the UASR, once they are back, those speaking too publicly about the different way they do things in America (I mean politics, not engineering or production management) will be silenced, the rest will think twice before speaking up (and once the Great Purge strikes, this won't guarantee their safety - everyone who has been out of the USSR will be at least held suspect - again, if we're speaking tens, not hundreds of thousands, and even then I'm not sure). This still will have an effect, though, creating a quietly resentful intelligentsia (not unlike OTL's 70s-80s one, the generation that was perhaps the brain of the Perestroika - except that this time, they will be committed to socialism, having seen that it works better if it isn't authoritarian).

It's important to remember that Stalin's apotheosis as autocrat was a decade and a half long process. The American revolution is just before some very key events which will have a wildly different context and course ITTL.
By 1933 (1934 at the very late) the system has largely been set in place. If you want bigger differences than the names of individual actors you need bigger divergences in the past Soviet history.
 
By 1933 (1934 at the very late) the system has largely been set in place. If you want bigger differences than the names of individual actors you need bigger divergences in the past Soviet history.

Things change before 33 though. The stronger American communist movement and the inability to control it totally like other communist parties has impacts on soviet internal politics way before the revolution.

You speak of the great purge like it's a given, but Stalin is much weaker internally here even if he got the same job. He'd probably get couped in favour of a pro American figure if he went for it.
 
Last edited:
By 2015, the USSR (which ITL never had the population implosion of OTL and has a population similar to that of the UASR)

On the contrary, it would have even less people than OTL former USSR combined. There wouldn't be the same population growth in the first place for the implosion to wipe out.
 
Back
Top