Infinity Worlds: How strong would a communist Europe be?

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by PTTG

That's an interesting idea. What would bring that about? I might imagine something Thomas Jefferson, but even then... Well... Maybe if someone sold it as "Catholicism Plus," it might take early on.

Religions usually are harder to shift than that. You might be able to get a new semi-Christian Deist state religion in the early US, but converting it to anything existing and blatantly non-Christian isn't going to happen until much later.

It's only after the last century or two of weakening of the hold of religions overall that it looks even far-fetched. If you want a widespread non-evolutionary change of faith you really need a conquest (and even with a new elite, it'll be at least a couple generations before you've really suppressed the pagans) or a period in which the dominant religion isn't satisfying the public and lots of people are already trying all kinds of alternatives (as in imperial Rome, or the 20th century West)

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by ericthered

You said WWII, so I'm going to assume that WWI goes down pretty much as expected, and the turbulent politics of the 30's result in a series of united socialist governments.

It can start earlier than that, if the German Revolution of 1918-19 (long complicated article) ends in a communist victory.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Athelstan

Is for an alternative world war 2 between US and a communist europe. Not sure how the US would react and act.

If the Communism we knew controlled all of Western Europe it would be no stronger then the communism we knew. That is it would be economically incompetent, politically brittle and imposed on a resentful population and it's earlier zeal would be gone as the thirties generation grew old and found it enjoyed power and it's perks and started to become not to much different from the Czars.

To postulate an effective Communism you have to postulate a different one.

I doubt they could get past the Channel in any event. Russia did not have the resources or the mass of specialized skilled workers to become a naval power.

Aside from the inherent flaws in the philosophy(which are as may be) the social make up of Russia put it's own limitation on it's utility as an imperial power. It had a good supply of geniuses at the top but the Czar's Russia had lagged behind in the technological revolution to long for the masses to reap it's benefits properly and to much of it's effort went into maintaining the oligarchy and not enough to the economy, a habit which never changed with regimes. This does not apply to Western Europe but having vassals more advanced then the conqueror is problematic in itself. While it could lead to a Greeks and Romans situation, the experience in Eastern Europe which had to some degree the same dynamic makes that seem unlikely.

A German Communism instead of a Russian one might well have been different though. How different is hard to tell. But Germany was better suited to rule Western Europe in any event.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

If the Communism we knew controlled all of Western Europe it would be no stronger then the communism we knew. That is it would be economically incompetent, politically brittle and imposed on a resentful population and it's earlier zeal would be gone as the thirties generation grew old and found it enjoyed power and it's perks and started to become not to much different from the Czars.

To postulate an effective Communism you have to postulate a different one.

First, it would be stronger, if not as a system, then by the sheer amount of resources available. Nazi Germany was not the same threat, even though it had the same system, in 1934 as in 1940. The Soviet Union of the 1960s, with its belt of European vassals filled with Soviet tanks, Communism spreading all over the Third World, and above all its nuclear weapons, was a lethal threat, while the Soviet Union of the 1930s had not been such a thing. Indeed, in the 1930s the USA never considered an act of war on the open seas against the Soviet Union, while in the 1960s they were ready to commit it.

Secondly, yes, you might very well postulate a different Communism, as you say:

A German Communism instead of a Russian one might well have been different though.

Even in actual history, you could get a shade more efficient Communism if you just went to East Germany. Communism and joie de vivre? Go to Cuba. Communism and less dissenters in the camps? Yugoslavia. Communism and dynasty? North Korea. The worst Communism? Bulgaria.

Naturally, all of those were not very significant variants because the leader solidly remained the Soviet Union.
But in this alternate Earth, who's to say that the leader of Communist Europe isn't Germany or France? That might - I'd say, should - change Communism, too.

I doubt they could get past the Channel in any event. Russia did not have the resources or the mass of specialized skilled workers to become a naval power.

By the late 1930s they had both, actually. They just had more pressing concerns on land. Apart from that, yes, the Soviet Union, starting from its own bases, would never conquer Britain - alone. Now, if Germany, France and Italy have already gone Communist and they all join forces against Britain? Ah.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Michele

First, it would be stronger, if not as a system, then by the sheer amount of resources available.

Those resources could have been a two edged sword as they were in the Warsaw Pact. Certainly if convinced that a full scale revolt was on national forces would be quite likely to defect as did the Polish Army. A lot the exploitation of those resources would be in the hands of natives in a position to sabotage them or likewise defect in the event of revolt. In some ways Russia was in the position of a hated subaltern commanding a penal battalion all of whom would frag him if they stopped fearing him.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

In some ways Russia was in the position of a hated subaltern commanding a penal battalion all of whom would frag him if they stopped fearing him.

No.
Communism did have, in most of those countries, sizable popular support. The majority of the people probably did not believe in it, but by no means "all" of them were against it. In the first free elections after 1990, in Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, the post-Communist parties won between 10% and 12% of the votes. Nothing compared to the 90-99% they got in non-free elections, true, but evidently not "all" of the people - even after decades of dictatorship, false promises and mismanagement - wanted to "frag" the old ways. And in Bulgaria it was 47%.
Naturally, they called themselves Social Democrats, Center-Leftists and so on; but they were the former Communist party of those countries, and the next closest thing people could vote.

If that's the way at the end, we can easily guess that in the beginning support may be in the 20-30% at least. Another way to look at this is looking not at the first free elections, but at the last ones. In Germany in 1932, the Communist got 16% and the Socialists 20%. In France in 1936, the Popular Front (again, Communists, Socialists and other Leftists together) won the elections. In Italy in 1919, the Socialists got 32%.