So I'm going to do that thing I've been doing to CivOasis's WW2 timeline.
In the subsequent midterm, the Democrats lost ground to the Republicans, but also to the Communists and Socialists, who picked up a token number of seats. Real damage came in 1936, however, when a powerful northern labor movement, disappointed in the Southerner Garner and not optimistic about the prospects of returning the Republicans to the White House, backed a variety of socialist candidates. The Republicans and Democrats lost ground in Congress, but President Garner was able to keep his seat thanks to a divided Republican vote.
Forget about a President Garner in 1936. It is definitely not clear that the Democrats wouldn't simply put up another candidate, with FDR's "legacy" ideas behind him. The Democrats definitely had these types of candidates in droves, such as Huey Long. A "powerful labor movement" is not going to back the SPUSA or, god forbid, the CPUSA, when it is already a powerful force in the most powerful party in the US at the time.
Garner’s nightmare was born shortly after the election, when the socialist parties resolved to create a coalition. Parties that were all too similar outright merged, leaving only the Socialist Party and the pro-Moscow Communist Party as the left-wing entities. Despite their differences, the two Parties arranged a secret agreement: they would endorse a unified candidate in 1940.
No they wouldn't.
The SPUSA and CPUSA wasn't just "pro-Moscow", the SPUSA was anti-Stalin, and there is no way these parties gain enough power between 1932 and 1940 to win 1. The White House and 2. Controlling majorities in both Houses and 3. Half the Supreme Court.
What happened was even more dramatic than expected. After the socialists used the continuing strength of the Depression to take control of the House and Senate in 1938, they ousted Garner with the Socialist Norman Thomas crushing him in the 1940 election.
No.
Like I said, there was already a powerful arm of the Democratic Party that was fielding candidates with ideas similar, if not more extreme, than FDR's. We have Huey Longs. We have his copycats. We have the OTL Union Party which can easily fold into the Democratic Party.
Though a Socialist, he kept the movement attuned to American ideals, valuing American religiosity and praising pacifism, hoping to avoid the revolutionary violence that led to the rise of the Soviet Union. His lack of outspoken internationalism (unlike the Communists) made him appealing to far more Americans in the wake of the War in Europe declared a year earlier.
So what makes him different from the Union Party, which IOTL received more votes in 1936 than the SPUSA and CPUSA put together despite not even existing in 1932?
Pacifism is
not an American idea. Isolationism and pacifism don't hold hands in the United States. How does the coalition between the CPUSA and SPUSA not collapse when three-fourths of it are actively fighting against what the other quarter really clearly wants and has as its
stated goal?
Washington had been paralyzed for 8 years by a conservative leader, and Thomas sought to keep the United States from breaking apart at the seams. While the Soviet Union had kept a tight lid on its activities, there were whispers of abuse and oppression within the Soviet system… and that was enough for Thomas to choose not to create another Soviet Union. “We will come together as a people, not as soldiers on the battlefield.”
Too bad the CPUSA, a wing of the coalition, is IOTL already actively working for the NKVD.
High taxes and deficit spending soared as Thomas not only funded food and basic housing for citizens, but began to buy up several depressed companies. These stakes in companies would in turn be placed under workers’ control, and they were asked to pay regular installments on a low-interest loan out of their profits.
1. The Supreme Court will not let this happen.
2. The State governments will not let this happen.
3. There would be a coup before this would happen.
Capitalists were somewhat alarmed by Thomas’ actions, but not entirely. Though Thomas was attempting to buy out many businesses, even Uncle Sam’s pockets were not that deep. Furthermore, buying out capitalists merely gave them more money to spend on other projects. It was only natural the Communists were also discontent with Thomas’ policies, only supporting it as a short-term measure.
What are Group 1 Projects for $500, Walter?
"Capitalists" in the United States not being entirely alarm with the SPUSA/CPUSA in charge? The same industrial-banker core that hired Pinkertons? The same one that allegedly tried to recruit generals to overthrow the government IOTL just five/six years earlier?
With increased wages as a result of worker cooperatives, progress was sufficient enough to float Thomas to victory in the 1942 midterms. With an increased mandate and much of the population in crushing poverty, Thomas floated his most radical proposal (as promised to the Communists): the wealth tax. Thomas’ Buy Out program merely modified capitalism, but the wealth tax would destroy it outright, by taxing the incredibly wealthy into oblivion. Buying Communist rhetoric, Thomas said that it was perfectly just to confiscate the bulk of the fortunes of men like the Rockefellers, as compensating them was akin to compensating slaveholders.
1. The Supreme Court will not let this happen.
2. The State governments will not let this happen.
3. There would be a coup before this would happen.
These three points will come up repeatedly because despite this allegedly being a "socialist democracy USA TL", the proposals and setup only work if there had been some violent coup or revolution.
All Hell broke loose. The capitalists, not finding many sympathizers among the poor or middle classes (the latter having been exempted from the bill), took whatever they could find of value and fled to the Southern United States.
With this logic, no socialist/communist revolution should ever fail because capitalists wouldn't find many "sympathizers" among the poor or middle classes.
The conservative South, as much as it would benefit from the government spending Thomas proposed, had never been entirely on board with the Socialist program due to its implicit inclusion of racial equality. Northern and Western oligarchs were all too happy to make their home there, and pick up the language of racial supremacy if it would make poor Southern whites overlook their class differences.
Forget about the Conservative South. Lets talk about the Conservative North which also was not down for racial equality either. White Northerners weren't liberals in any modern sense of the word when it came to race relations. How does the SPUSA/CPUSA even win in 1940? Did the Democrats literally just vanish entirely?
Using a great portion (albeit not as great as what Thomas would take) of their wealth, the capitalist leaders were able to push Southern leaders towards a second secession. In a Declaration of Independence riddled with Revolutionary and Confederate nostalgia, the Southern governments and their militias seceded from the Union once more, stating that the Supreme Court had no authority over the people’s wishes. Constructing a slightly more centralized government than the Confederacy to avoid its issues, the South awaited Washington’s answer.
Given the Supreme Court would have rejected a lot of measures taken by the SPUSA and CPUSA, there is no need for secession. Secession doesn't make sense here. It would be a violent counterrevolution, not a secession.
The pacifist Thomas approached the South with a compromise. Given the large quantities of wealth that had been nationalized, there was no pressing need to pursue those who had fled into Southern territory. Financial transactions would be frozen until the debts were paid, however. Finances aside, however, Thomas arranged a compromise: the South would be allowed to secede. His only request was that both countries have distinctive titles to avoid any disputes over legitimacy.
No.
Thomas would be impeached. Thomas would not be able to get this through the Senate or House unless the SPUSA ITTL looks NOTHING like the SPUSA IOTL ideologically.
The rest of the timeline just continues to break down from this point to the point of insanity that ignores American cultural and political attitudes of the 1930s and 1940s in favor of a Mary Sue version of the United States that can be ruled by the SPUSA/CPUSA AND still be a democracy.
Somehow, the European War is still being waged in 1944 even though the USA is pacifist/isolationist more than OTL but still somehow sending the arms and supplies to the UK and USSR needed for both to carry out their respective war efforts.
-FDR is assassinated, the US never adopts the New Deal, and the Depression leads to the rise of the Socialist and Communist Parties
How does the Socialists/Communists go from 2.5% of the vote in 1932 to what I presume is a SP victory in 1936? The 1930s United States was marked by powerful personalities, and IOTL we have people like Huey Long and Father Coughlin.
I don't see the South leaving before 1936, given Nance was FDR's VP. I also don't see socialists getting more than 10% of the vote in 1936.
I get it. You're trying to make a timeline with Commie USA, Confederacy, etc., and twist it into a Cold War setting. CivOasis is doing the same thing, albeit through a 1933 Business Plot.
But this timeline breaks down too quickly, and too easily. Things don't follow naturally from the point of divergence and suspension of disbelief only gets one so far. People are able to accept a lot of what happens in Red Alert because there is time travel and a bunch of timey-wobby technobabble. When these "CPUSSA" timelines try to ignore that inherently sci-fi core of Red Alert and just write a timeline, things get weird and people notice this weirdness.