Absolutely. Hoover and Ford are far greater beasts than MacArthur, and the Natcorps have at their disposal an entire generation of disillusioned Americans whose despair and rage are easily redirected at whatever desired targets. One of the less-discussed challenges the Republic and the other democracies face is that is simply easier to incite than inspire, and there is a morale gap between both the military and civilian populations of the two.
For the Republic: A History of the Second American Civil War
- Thread starter The Angry Observer
- Start date
There's also the fact that underlings, unless they become notorious for themselves, like Johnson has been doing (I think that's the name of the guy who was rampaging through the TTL Midwest and looting the farms and crops)...
...are very likely to be ignored in the postwar period because hate has focused on the most visible faces (like TTL MacArthur) even if these underlings have done far more damage than MacArthur ever did.
(Like, maybe MacArthur just orders "execute this guy", without caring more about the issue... but the underling adds on his own "but first we'll torture and murder his entire family, and make him watch. THEN is when we'll torture him until he dies." )
Interesting look at the Natcorps, it does to very much ironically seem a popular front of various sort of right wing groups disillusioned with the US nation and united only to topple it and began building their own image and their hatred of their enemies.
The Bush plan does help explain the Natcorps developed a fairly solid foundation of support.
Though I wonder why Eisenhower's report is so neutral given the report as mentioned virtually everyone who got involved with Mac Arthur did it for ideological reasons maybe he got purged or defected? The Republicans would likely do anything to win this war and brining your ex enemies into the fold is a classic tactic for a reason even if you must forgive and forget some of their actions.
Mainly because otherwise you think it he would receive a more a damning condemnation what he felt the USA could be and supported helping make the nightmares the Natcorp inflict across the US possible. You know being a American patriot who in his patriotic duty helped to set a up fascist state that's extensively relied on foreign support to butcher their own citizens on behalf of a man who acts like he's a king just like the founding father's clearly intended.
The Bush plan does help explain the Natcorps developed a fairly solid foundation of support.
Though I wonder why Eisenhower's report is so neutral given the report as mentioned virtually everyone who got involved with Mac Arthur did it for ideological reasons maybe he got purged or defected? The Republicans would likely do anything to win this war and brining your ex enemies into the fold is a classic tactic for a reason even if you must forgive and forget some of their actions.
Mainly because otherwise you think it he would receive a more a damning condemnation what he felt the USA could be and supported helping make the nightmares the Natcorp inflict across the US possible. You know being a American patriot who in his patriotic duty helped to set a up fascist state that's extensively relied on foreign support to butcher their own citizens on behalf of a man who acts like he's a king just like the founding father's clearly intended.
Last edited:
Thank you for update, very good text.
About Ike.
Maybe in the end of war Eisenhower will decide to surrender remnants of Natcorp regular army (as Lee decided to surrender at Appomatox) and save USA from decade-long guerilla war (which wanted Jeff Davis and, I suppose, which will want more fanatical Natcorps)?
About Ike.
This remind me about postwar reputation of general Lee.
Maybe in the end of war Eisenhower will decide to surrender remnants of Natcorp regular army (as Lee decided to surrender at Appomatox) and save USA from decade-long guerilla war (which wanted Jeff Davis and, I suppose, which will want more fanatical Natcorps)?
Last edited:
Likely for much the same reason why Rommel got whitewashed. In the sheer hatred and carnage which so defines this era having a non-evil person on the other side lets you believe in common humanity, even if such an image is built on lies and myths.
That's true good point, they will sooner or later have to make peace/ get a surrender the Natcorps and such myths are needed for doing so or potentially see a forever war.
Last edited:
Especially if the radicalization of the NatCorp regime leads to Eisenhower getting purged in some way or another.
Republican propaganda is also a big part of it. Since the American Republic is fundamentally left-wing and nationalist, there's a lot of motivation on their part (our narration, if you haven't noticed, is Republican, but also coming at things with the benefit of hindsight) to paint the Natcorps as rich elites conning the everyman, and there's also a lot of motivation do distance Natcorpism from America itself. So, pinning it all on a bunch of greedy unpatriotic guys is really convenient for a lot of reasons. The reality is also kind of ironic and not quite as simplistic, because lots of fabulously rich businesses are backing Smith. And the Natcorps are literally instituting price controls, stimulus payouts, nationalization, etc. to win the war.
And Smith's personal politics were not exactly the most progressive, which is one of the great ironies of this war.
Our idea is that, throughout 1934, it is basically accepted that if the Natcorps haven't won already they are currently winning and all that's left to do is wrap up the fighting in New York. Keep in mind, Smith literally ran from the White House like a Byzantine Emperor and fled to a relatively small (geographically) region to hide out in. The Republicans might've been able to win at Syracuse, but they got utterly smoked in a ton of other battles by the U.S. Army. In the Midwest, the Natcorps easily thrashed the Republicans at the Battle of Rockford and have Chicago under siege. Philadelphia hasn't fallen yet, but it's getting hit with some of the most savage fighting in modern history by a better armed and better trained force. The Natcorps have massive air superiority. The international community at large is certainly not okay with them, but the Natcorps are getting a lot more support from Germany and Italy than the Republic is from the Allies.
This, of course, misses a lot, like the fact that the western and southern blocs are outside of Natcorp control, MacArthur lost the lion's share of the fleet, the Republicans are sitting on lots of resources to fuel their war machine, and are slowly closing the gap on a lot of other fronts (i.e., military technology-- should get an update of its own pretty soon, albeit it's not my strong suit). But all that takes time. In 1934, to a lot of generals, politicians, and business leaders, it sure looks like Al Smith has been exiled and military wunderkind Douglas MacArthur is in charge. MacArthur has done a great job at, basically, playing state. Lots of people are going to stand by him by default, without knowing the full implications, and by the time the regime's monstrous nature is fully revealed they'll already be neck-deep in a war against radical leftists that are trying to kill them. Eisenhower, for instance, doesn't know that the Supreme Court or his mentor Black Jack was murdered until it's too late.
Last edited:
I think we also kind of, by nature, want to make everything simple and Lee, Rommel, ITL Eisenhower are not simple people.
I mean, even this guy loved his dog.
Yeah, Smith is in this really funny position. None of Smith's conservative opponents ITL really understand exactly what, by winning the 1932 DNC, he saved them from. By overthrowing him, the Natcorp bosses are making him try to do something he never wanted to: destroy them entirely with the full power of the American state. The March on Washington and the regime's actions afterwards also, amazingly, managed to get all the leftists in America and maybe the world under one banner, the same one trying to destroy them. Smith would've never allied with the Soviet Union and leftist militias (more on this soon) that actually do want to kill the rich and install socialism if it wasn't for the Natcorps themselves. And now, to top it off, the Natcorps have crossed the Rubicon and absolutely have to win this war, which requires massive financial commitments, far more burdensome than anything liberals like Smith had planned for them.
Evil is stupid indeed.
Last edited:
I'm always intrigued that, when analyzing the military failures of the Nazi regime or the American Confederacy, there's a perennial debate over who should bear more responsibility for defeats: Hitler/Davis, or the generals. I don't think the truth is super straightforward, and so I like the idea of there being a debate ITL. The narration is supposed to come close enough that there are still people that lived through these events walking around, but far enough to where the dust has settled and America is ready to question a lot of things about the war. Since we have already decided how the war will end and what the eventual fate of the major players on both sides will be, we have in mind what the "narrative" being told about the war is. The truth is supposed to be complicated and kind of up for debate.
Last edited:
Speaking of which, what could be a nice historical in-joke could be that the American Liberty League is still organized around Al Smith, representing the President and his allies in the business community and Congress.
Sure thing, especially as the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Thank you, glad you read and liked it!
The thing about the south/Confederacy that I think fundamentally separates them from the Natcorps is that the south is sectionalized from the rest of America. At the end of the day, if Lincoln wants to win, he kind of has to bring them back into the fold. Even the most radical of the Radical Republicans recognized this in some way, too, with land reform plans building a new south for the freedmen and poor whites at the expense of the ruling planter class.
Here, the war is far more driven by ideology and, basically, a clique of evil people trying to take over. So what Smith and the Republic want is actually way simpler than what Lincoln and the Union wanted. To win, they basically have to beat the Natcorps until they can't move.
If i'm being honest the narrative of this SACW gives me the impression that the trauma will make the US will be even more regionally divided than OTL. Especially if the resulting resolution appeases no one.
I generally don't like the idea of reducing conflicts to "a clique of evil people vs. those who oppose them" because it tends to be a broad-brush cartoonish view that erases various nuances and seems like the kind of thing only Hollywood screenwriters would believe. but in this case it is quite appropriate to describe the NatCorps.
Being forced to commit suicide probably did not harm Rommel's post war reputation as as been said elsewhere dying can be a smart career move.