Reds fanfic

[Libertad]

I agree. I don't mind the UASR winning, nor does it have to be entirely balanced. But it's very dull if the FBU and USSR lose and are shown to be morally inferior to the UASR.

I'm not saying it has to be close but it has to be feasible that it's a Cold War, not a slow victory for the UASR. There should be points where everyone goes "If this POD changes, does the FBU/USSR win the Cold War (without blowing everyone else up)?"

You have good points Libertad, especially about the youth questioning - I can see UASR youth asking if capitalism is this big evil monster their parents generation say it is or if the USSR's authoritarian system truly is the path to communism when the UASR seems to be doing better. However I disagree in the sense that the FBU seems to have institutionally acceptable issues with race and sex - it's not seen as a problem by those in power and if anything "the damned Asians and feminists" are regarded as subversives - equal rights campaigns are seen as fronts for communist organisations. The racism stuff is quasi-inevitable with the colonial empire admittedly but it just makes the FBU look like it's shooting itself in the foot - "our system is better....for the straight white male anyway". It may be because this sort of thing jars somewhat with French and British political traditions, which are quite liberal, so to see them rounding up Asians purely on racial grounds is rather jarring. You want to know what made them fall that far. Not to mention that socially, the world seems more progressive than OTL (ok I don't count crazy amounts of sex as really that progressive but the point still stands), whilst the FBU seems socially backwards by our standards - by the standards of Reds!, it'd be positively medieval 9it's not just white supremacy either - Celts are lower in the Anglo-French union).

By all means, have the FBU the inferior party. But at least make them competent, give them a chance and inject some grey morality into the equation throughout the Cold War (that said, hints suggest we do actually get that). We just need to avoid a "Everything the communists told us about communism was true. Everything they told us about capitalism was also true" scenario.

I'm all in favor of putting the discussion in greater balance and make the Cold War look like a Cold War. It's all about writing and trying to present it. But nevertheless, the point of the Reds! story is a bit ideologically biased. This is how it's built to begin with. In the same that IOTL Cold War saw a victory for Western capitalism, ITTL Cold War has to look like socialism is winning the Cold War. And in fact, ideologically speaking, it has to be winning not just because international communism is doing better but because the pressures for the supposedly inferior economic system to begin with, ideologically speaking, to perform on a similar capacity is building its own conditions and contradictions for impending inevitable collapse. It's not capable of competing to begin with. But it has to try. To be fair, it's set to be in the near future beyond the targeted finished date. This is not even a discussion about an event past the Event Horizon, which is the institution of world socialism or even farther, world communism. There's still a Cold War ITTL by 2015. It's already finished IOTL, carrying the destruction of the ecosystem and human civilization with it if I may argue.

Again, the discussion about what the FBU does ITTL can be colored by our personal perspectives about IOTL's Western society today. And I think it's also colored by the fact that Jello, as known in this forum, is a woman and a left-communist feminist which makes me, a Third World based radleftist, understand what she's trying to say even if I am a male while it makes things more confusing for those who are not part of the "losers" of modern IOTL history. I am not trying to be condescending and say that it's something that's not going to be understandable for those who don't fit to our categories. But it makes things more confusing at first for them. It's a different experience. But it's something those outside our backgrounds can relate. It's just not easily apparent to see because we have to get past race and gender at first before we get to class, the 99% versus the 1% thing. We all came from different personal backgrounds anyway. And I think this is where we can't see eye to eye in discussing this issue. It's a different understanding of the world society's superstructure and racial and gender relations in developed and developing world. What you don't see as "institutional racism and sexism" can look very institutional for others. I've been reading accounts and hear stories about mass incarceration phenomenon in the US through people doing classes and teaching to prisoners like Chris Hedges plus other sources which can be considered "biased" because they're not in the mainstream press. So, let's just agree to disagree.

Again, the point of the younger generation questioning the Classical Left is not in the sense of capitalism as a big evil monster or not. It's a big evil monster, alright. It's just in a different more conciliatory form. The question would be why it remained resilient despite the rise of two giant socialist superpowers squeezing it from all sides. What happened? How did it bounced back? And you get differing interpretations. The New Left will rise from that. World revolution is supposed to be fast. And yet the Cold War put a stop into that. It didn't give birth to world socialism by 1950. So, why the hell is that? The USSR is authoritarian too. The question is what kind of authoritarianism is this and is it possible that the UASR can still undo the damage or not? How can this be fixed? By confronting it or not?

This is also where I can make this point. The FBU is very progressive by our world's societal standards. It's not socially backward by our standards. I can say that it's very progressive. Quite Scandinavian. And yet it looks very backward by Reds! societal standards. And who is making Reds! now? Those who look differently in the issue of race and gender and nation-state IOTL. So, that's why Jello, IP and even others can say words like "racism, imperialism and sexism" to a situation that looks progressive by OTL standards.

 

[MernStahl]

snip

I see what you're saying. And I can certainly agree that our own experiences and values may colour our perceptions - since I'm not a Marxist, I will view things naturally differently - after all, IP has claimed to have seen oppression and other such terrible things whereas I have raised my eyebrows and gone "where is this oppression you speak of? I don't see any oppression" because we view it differently, as is to be expected.

It'd be like a conservative and a socialist both looking at an issue where someone benefits from their parents power. The socialist decries the unfairness of the situation, as the child is given an unfair leg up. The conservative simply looks on and thinks this is just someone helping their child to better itself, as anyone would do and sees no problem with this.

You're right - this is a biased TL after all but one can hardly complain. I've endorsed biased TL's before.

And perhaps the degree of discrimination is also different - I had considered that even if the FBU was socially progressive by our standards, from the UASR perspective it may appear backwards (relativity and all). Though I would disagree it's Scandinavian level.

I agree, perhaps best to agree that we see things differently and thus will never see eye to eye so let's not ruin anything by arguing. You are right in "agreeing to disagree".

 

[Libertad]

I see what you're saying. And I can certainly agree that our own experiences and values may colour our perceptions - since I'm not a Marxist, I will view things naturally differently - after all, IP has claimed to have seen oppression and other such terrible things whereas I have raised my eyebrows and gone "where is this oppression you speak of? I don't see any oppression" because we view it differently, as is to be expected.

It'd be like a conservative and a socialist both looking at an issue where someone benefits from their parents power. The socialist decries the unfairness of the situation, as the child is given an unfair leg up. The conservative simply looks on and thinks this is just someone helping their child to better itself, as anyone would do and sees no problem with this.

You're right - this is a biased TL after all but one can hardly complain. I've endorsed biased TL's before.

And perhaps the degree of discrimination is also different - I had considered that even if the FBU was socially progressive by our standards, from the UASR perspective it may appear backwards (relativity and all). Though I would disagree it's Scandinavian level.

I agree, perhaps best to agree that we see things differently and thus will never see eye to eye so let's not ruin anything by arguing. You are right in "agreeing to disagree".

You have no idea how I love "capitalist" and "imperialist" TL's man. I've loved Ameriwanks and still love them and I think this is how Reds! helped me in my transition ideologically. Reds! looks like a super Ameriwank anyway. It's just not in the form of territorial expansion of the United States of America but American communism ITTL becoming hegemonic and the UASR leading the process of the Internationale becoming a de facto inter-continental socialistic USA.

And I am not a Marxist too. I'm in the more wild territory of anarchism. And honestly, I sympathize with a lot of conservative ideals. In particular, paleoconservatism. I'm more into the American Old Right. States' rights, tradition, family values and all of that plus local communitarianism. That's why it's not ASBish for me to see the left-wing radicalization of the Midwesterner conservatives ITTL. If the Old Right and the New Left IOTL can contemplate an alliance in the late 60s in the same way that there's a rise of a "Left-Right Alliance" today as Nader calls it, then just cooked a few more conditions in early 20th century to make it a reality in its ITTL form. And Reds! made it happen.

But I agree with everybody that the FBU has to look more like it's fighting communism well despite the more unfavorable circumstances. It's all about the presentation. I'm sure that Jello takes it into consideration. But we're still in 1940 and there's still a gap from 1933-1940 to be filled. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[The_Red_Star_Rising]

I personally see the FBU as largely at the same place modern France and Britain are socially in terms of progression if perhaps somewhat ahead. It's just that by the standards of the UASR and especially the post-liberalization USSR (there is word of a massive cultural revolution there) they seem prudish and casually bigoted by comparison. It's also more or less canon that they have a welfare system at least as good as modern day western Europe, not quite Scandinavian Social Democracy, but it's certainly better than what America has ever had.

I also believe that Jello said that the FBU is not really losing due to any inferiority in doctrine, it's just that it's hard to compete with the Soviet Union and the United States. That being said, developed colonies like its absolutely massive African territories and the Indian subcontinent and a bolstered Brazil and Indonesia would make it much more able to complete. Holding those and Western Europe would put it on a very good footing, but similarly these are the places that are going to contested fiercely in any cold war. The FBU has the potential to do better than OTL America did by investing the resources needed to build up these places, and it really should for its own sake. Just letting them sit in their squalor is a waste of their time and their money for no benefit beyond prestige.

 

[Libertad]

I personally see the FBU as largely at the same place modern France and Britain are socially in terms of progression if perhaps somewhat ahead. It's just that by the standards of the UASR and especially the post-liberalization USSR (there is word of a massive cultural revolution there) they seem prudish and casually bigoted by comparison. It's also more or less canon that they have a welfare system at least as good as modern day western Europe, not quite Scandinavian Social Democracy, but it's certainly better than what America has ever had.

I also believe that Jello said that the FBU is not really losing due to any inferiority in doctrine, it's just that it's hard to compete with the Soviet Union and the United States. That being said, developed colonies like its absolutely massive African territories and the Indian subcontinent and a bolstered Brazil and Indonesia would make it much more able to complete. Holding those and Western Europe would put it on a very good footing, but similarly these are the places that are going to contested fiercely in any cold war. The FBU has the potential to do better than OTL America did by investing the resources needed to build up these places, and it really should for its own sake. Just letting them sit in their squalor is a waste of their time and their money for no benefit beyond prestige.

Yes, there's an ideological based explanation for the FBU losing the Cold War but there's also a sheer resource based economies of scale explanation. It's actually still partially ideological in its explanation through the Marxist argument of necessity of socialist revolutions in industrial countries. But it's also the fact that the Internationale got so big to begin with. The sheer transformation of the United States, the wealthiest capitalist economy and the society of the planet, and the most of the resource rich Americas to socialism and mostly remaining unscathed from World War II is one thing while most of the Franco-British Empire like India and Africa is poor while France and Western Europe is mostly in ruins. The UASR already has a head-start. It's even explained in an update way before in this thread. By 1940; the UASR produces more cars, steel, iron, etc. than ALL of the great powers combined. An "arsenal of socialism" indeed in a recent update. That's without the rapidly industrializing Soviet Latin America.

As someone here argued before, the 1933 Revolution itself sealed capitalism's fate in the long run. But that's a bit more ideological based explanation. But we have to recognize the fact that in a world with scarce resources, a rival economic system got a bigger share of the pie in the end. And trade alone for the antagonist wouldn't compensate for the losses in the long run. It's going to implode eventually and everything crashes down. But that's skillfully left to speculation. By the end of this great story, the FBU still stands proud despite being thoroughly beaten in the long game of survival.

The essential features of FBU capitalism, as Jello said, largely parallels Japanese corporatism but societal dynamics is indeed can be on the standards of OTL Britain and France but a bit more upgraded. The welfare state is more secure. And yet, thanks to the Cold War ITTL, you get US dynamics on religious life and anti-communist mentalities too plus a proto-fascistic ultra-right adopting classical liberal phraseologies under Randian Objectivism. Yes, you're both correct, it's not Scandinavian.

 

[MernStahl]

I also believe that Jello said that the FBU is not really losing due to any inferiority in doctrine, it's just that it's hard to compete with the Soviet Union and the United States. That being said, developed colonies like its absolutely massive African territories and the Indian subcontinent and a bolstered Brazil and Indonesia would make it much more able to complete. Holding those and Western Europe would put it on a very good footing, but similarly these are the places that are going to contested fiercely in any cold war. The FBU has the potential to do better than OTL America did by investing the resources needed to build up these places, and it really should for its own sake. Just letting them sit in their squalor is a waste of their time and their money for no benefit beyond prestige.

Yeah I think you're right about that. Jello said it's just because they're spending too much and getting in too little, rather than ideological reasons - much like how OTL USSR didn't have an invalid economic doctrine, it just couldn't compete (the planned economy could have worked but it then becomes a question of "Do you actually want it?". The same is true here, but in reverse). I am reminded of an economics paper which was actually on the calculation problem. The paper argued that in theory, a planned economy should be possible. But just because it is possible doesn't mean it must be done - the paper pointed out that the planned economy is good if you want to accomplish certain things but if you want to accomplish something else, it isn't (the author noted which system you would pick came down to equality vs liberty as your end goal, in the end).

And the fact that Objectivism gets more support in this TL is the really depressing factor.

And Libertad is right about the speculation - didn't Jello say the ending was open but the Cold War was over either way - even if the PA remain in power, their colonies and dominions will mostly be gone. They can retain their system but they'll be like the planned economies of today - the odd exception, rather than the rule. Dear god they may even end up like OTL's Russia.

 

[Miss Teri]

I always saw it that the FBU was collapsing the same reason the OTL USSR collapsed. It simply had systemic problems from its beginnings, and those problems are slowly manifesting themselves. From a bloated defense budget to growing problems with the unions to a repressive, but unstable government system. It isn't simply that it is a capitalist state, but that it has trouble balancing the role of government and industry, and building the right economic priorities, like the UASR and USSR. That's my view, at least.

 

[Libertad]

I always saw it that the FBU was collapsing the same reason the OTL USSR collapsed. It simply had systemic problems from its beginnings, and those problems are slowly manifesting themselves. From a bloated defense budget to growing problems with the unions to a repressive, but unstable government system. It isn't simply that it is a capitalist state, but that it has trouble balancing the role of government and industry, and building the right economic priorities, like the UASR and USSR. That's my view, at least.

That's the ideological based explanation that I'm talking about.

But Jello presented the reason in a more neutral manner, the sheer economies of scale factor. If you know about the idea of expanding markets from a radleft perspective, you'll know. That's what's happening here. The capitalist market is shrinking, not expanding. There's a temporary expansion through mass industrialization in the colonies benefiting the industrial elites but in the long run, it's shrinking. And for a system that's relying on expansion and profit maximization, that's a direct threat to its existence. Financialization is not an option because it creates the possibility of deeper economic crises. Making the economy more green is also a direct threat.

The more conservative explanation is the idea of spending too much and that's true too. The FBU has no choice but to spend to keep populations in line and bring profits to contractors. The tripartite explanation also enters. The capitalist state couldn't hold off the confrontation between labor and capital anymore. Even OTL, that's what happened in the 1970s, but the corporate coup d' etat won through neoliberalism. Here, I don't know. I just see something the Lost Decades.

And again, May I reiterate that this is not a dichotomy of market versus planned economy. That's not what the Cold War here is about. It's a battle of social spaces that goes beyond geopolitical nation-state rivalries. From a libertarian standpoint, it's also between the pursuit of individual autonomy versus the imposed conformity of the state. Anyway, both the FBU and the Internationale are mixed economies of market and planning. The difference is that you have corporations and corporate/financial elites on one side while you have coordinators/intelligentsia on the other side. It's also a battle between two different power structures and there's a great Mass trying to find its way out of both systems of power. So, it's more complicated than say; the UASR, the USSR and the FBU fighting each other out.

 

[The_Red_Star_Rising]

Yeah I think you're right about that. Jello said it's just because they're spending too much and getting in too little, rather than ideological reasons - much like how OTL USSR didn't have an invalid economic doctrine, it just couldn't compete (the planned economy could have worked but it then becomes a question of "Do you actually want it?". The same is true here, but in reverse). I am reminded of an economics paper which was actually on the calculation problem. The paper argued that in theory, a planned economy should be possible. But just because it is possible doesn't mean it must be done - the paper pointed out that the planned economy is good if you want to accomplish certain things but if you want to accomplish something else, it isn't (the author noted which system you would pick came down to equality vs liberty as your end goal, in the end).

And the fact that Objectivism gets more support in this TL is the really depressing factor.

And Libertad is right about the speculation - didn't Jello say the ending was open but the Cold War was over either way - even if the PA remain in power, their colonies and dominions will mostly be gone. They can retain their system but they'll be like the planned economies of today - the odd exception, rather than the rule. Dear god they may even end up like OTL's Russia.

The thing about colonies is that you need to develop them or else they just eat up money. The relatively developed colonies like Canada, Egypt, South Africa, and Australia in OTL provided more profit for the British empire than pretty much all the undeveloped territories combined, because they actually had something to give back to the empire; rather than basically acting as a giant money pit. It'd be outright folly to not put money into developing them so that they're remembered as the people who helped them into modernity (like actually helped, not the "help" they gave in our timeline) rather than as vile oppressors, which gives them a much better chance at these countries remaining friendly even after decolonization.

 

[E. Burke]

In terms of making it morally grey here's an idea:

The uasr is more democratic so the average person feels more responsible for the actions of the state, good and bad.

 

[Miss Teri]

I like making fake threads. They're so fun to write. That's why I decided to make this a thread.

From alternatehistory.com discussion thread Yank's Opinion on Dr. Who, retrived January 6th, 2010

So, I'm doing a TL, dealing with Doctor Who. Specifically, what if Jon Pertwee had been given the role of the Third Doctor, rather than eventual Doctor Ron Moody. I'm looking into Dr. Who's introduction into the UASR in 1974, and it's brief run from 1974 to 1979, and later, its reintroduction in 1983. I want to know what the American opinion is or was on the show, either at the time or today. Just to display how it might be received differently.

I love Dr. Who! I grew up with the 80's series, but I have seen the older ones, thanks to my dad. He watched the series from even before its introduction to the US, by watching Canadian broadcasts, which Americans on the border could pick up. In fact, my mother told me, he'd come back from work early on Fridays to watch Doctor Who. To note, he was a Social Ecology representative in a Washington Soviet, and this was during the Green Revolution. Anyway, I personally love Who, and so do a lot of other people I know. I know some see it as an Objectivist power fantasy (a powerful intellectual improves the world through his skills.) However, the imagination displayed is great. The actors are always fun the watch. And the Doctor always has help from his companions. I think it is a beloved cult classic here. Though, most will tell you that they like the 80's series most.

I also love Doctor Who. Though, the Fifth one onwards. The 60's and 70's ones (admittedly, they're hard to come by. Most are only available on home video here.) have their charm, but the effects are pretty bad, and the plots are obtuse. The 80's series was where it really got good. I never heard the "Objectivist" criticism. Frankly, anybody whose seen it seems to like it well enough. Even die-hard Anglophobes

Funny you all should vex nostalgic for the 80's series. Because, well, it's an "Old Shame" period here. It was right after the 79 crisis, and subversive elements were being denounced everywhere. Tom Baker was fired for criticizing the government overreach, and the show became very patriotic. The Fifth Doctor would fight socialists, communists, various fifth columnists as seen by the ruling Lion. The stories became more ludicrous and were very clearly propaganda. The version you got was the episodes made after the situation died down. Though I will say the Fifth Doctor is still very well liked, including by me, despite being added for his conservative beliefs, and there are some great episodes from this period

 

[MernStahl]

I like making fake threads. They're so fun to write. That's why I decided to make this a thread.

From alternatehistory.com discussion thread Yank's Opinion on Dr. Who, retrived January 6th, 2010

I kind of liked that actually. Well done but also informative - the kind of thing Jello would put out.

Anyone got any ideas for the GTA series? Would they still be set in America or more likely the FBU (I presume they'd continue with the social satire). It could have politics in it but it'd likely be strawman and satirised - if it were set in the FBU, you'd have head-in-the-clouds upper class who have no idea what life is like for many ordinary people and the head-in-the-sand working class calling for revolution without the slightest idea of the validity and practicality of their claims. I imagine the politics will never be taken seriously and will just be for fun.

In terms of making it morally grey here's an idea:

The uasr is more democratic so the average person feels more responsible for the actions of the state, good and bad.

Aye, that could work - after all, the FBU may be less democratic but that is not necessarily a bad thing. It'd be nice to see failures of democracy if that is the case, rather than just the theoretical notion, so as to avoid running the risk of wandering into the Union of Mary Suetopia Socialist Republics.


Also, any ideas regarding Vietnam/Indochina (or is it Brazil?) in media on both sides of the Curtain? If it is in Indochina, I gather the UASR sends in guerrilla units and other such subtler methods vs the heavier force of the FBU (I'm banking on them taking on some of their Malayan Emergency lessons though). How will this be portrayed in media? Any thoughts?

 

[E. Burke]

I kind of liked that actually. Well done but also informative - the kind of thing Jello would put out.

Anyone got any ideas for the GTA series? Would they still be set in America or more likely the FBU (I presume they'd continue with the social satire). It could have politics in it but it'd likely be strawman and satirised - if it were set in the FBU, you'd have head-in-the-clouds upper class who have no idea what life is like for many ordinary people and the head-in-the-sand working class calling for revolution without the slightest idea of the validity and practicality of their claims. I imagine the politics will never be taken seriously and will just be for fun.



Aye, that could work - after all, the FBU may be less democratic but that is not necessarily a bad thing. It'd be nice to see failures of democracy if that is the case, rather than just the theoretical notion, so as to avoid running the risk of wandering into the Union of Mary Suetopia Socialist Republics.


Also, any ideas regarding Vietnam/Indochina (or is it Brazil?) in media on both sides of the Curtain? If it is in Indochina, I gather the UASR sends in guerrilla units and other such subtler methods vs the heavier force of the FBU (I'm banking on them taking on some of their Malayan Emergency lessons though). How will this be portrayed in media? Any thoughts?

That could be done very well via threads. With UASR people talking about these feelings of responsibility.

 

[Shadowlord]

While I have stressed that the politicization of art and culture is quite more intensified ITTL, it's usually not so on the nose.

Let's use ASoIaF as an example. George R.R. Martin was quite historically well read, and that served as an influence in the creation of the series. But history is taught differently. It's dominated by Marxian derived schools of thought in the UASR. What changes...well honestly, not as much as you might think. Perhaps a bit more background talk of economics, less pure political intrique.

Would the Brotherhood Without Banners get more focus in Reds-ASOIAF?

 

[ragnarokalok]

How much has been established about how China fits into the post-war world? A Comintern RoC led by a progressive KMT could react in a lot of ways, particularly if a civil war can be averted. The Labor FBU government would have a lot of common ground with a left KMT, and the United Nations are the perfect forum for it. OTL's 5 UNSC seats are most likely reduced to a Four Policeman arrangement of the UASR, USSR, FBU, and RoC. The FBU can bring in enough capitalist neutrals to populate a major UN bloc, so the Reds! UN could come to be seen by the American left as a reactionary vehicle for restraining the world revolution.

Whatever massive FBU co option of their colonies go, it'd include a lot of reparations for imperialism. The immediate post war FBU won't have the industrial capacity of the communist bloc, but they will have a lot of intellectual capital, international trade, and likely still access to the best consumer goods, so they have a lot to offer, and a lot of economic potential from industrializing their colonies.

With the Nazis going east first, the French and British (and dutch?) can afford to commit larger naval and economic effort to the Far East. The need to incorporate the Philippines as a protectorate would likely serve as a early test case for the coming grand imperial bargain. If British leadership is seriously contemplating war with America the region is going to be better fortified than in OTL. However the FBU war with Japan breaks out, they could defend SE Asia well enough to win over the locals, and to potentially liberate South China with FBU troops/assistance. Multi-national FBU liberation forces would go a long way towards winning hearts, minds, and economic influence over South China.

Even if the end result is still a fairly autonomous Chinese road to socialism, it'd be very easy for any RoC coordination with the FBU to be seen in the UASR as losing China to the capitalists, and in doing so harden the fractures within America and within the Comintern at large. An strong, autonomous China would also balance the cold war out - and the shifts in alignment in a field of four great powers is certainly fuel for enough orwellian cynicism to keep the utopian impulses in check.

Thats all just speculation though, its been a while since I have seen china discussed in these threads.

 

[The_Red_Star_Rising]

China is part of the Comintern, but like East-Germany is strongly committed to its independence in foreign policy and refuses to be dominated by either the USSR or the UASR. It might even have the same sort of wary hostility towards the USSR it had in our timeline with lots of troops staring down each other at the borders. If it's also not entirely trusting of the UASR it could even be something of a third wheel in the Communist bloc with its own leverage to pull (after of course, it gets out of its economic mire).

 

[Derekc2]

Hey guys, how do you think the movie An American Tail would be different than from OTL? I mean it's about jewish mice immigrants who get oppressed by Fat cats in New York after being driven out from their homeland of Russia by Russian cats so I can see it being somewhat the same as OTL.

 

[The_Red_Star_Rising]

Hey guys, how do you think the movie An American Tail would be different than from OTL? I mean it's about jewish mice immigrants who get oppressed by Fat cats in New York after being driven out from their homeland of Russia by Russian cats so I can see it being somewhat the same as OTL.

The whole thing is meant to deconstruct the tale of the 19th century Immigrant dream and show how horrible things were for poor immigrants coming to America at the time. So I don't see much cause for it not to be largely the same.

 

[Derekc2]

The whole thing is meant to deconstruct the tale of the 19th century Immigrant dream and show how horrible things were for poor immigrants coming to America at the time. So I don't see much cause for it not to be largely the same.

Yeah, I can see it being pretty much the same movie.

 

[Miss Teri]

From alternatehistory.com discussion thread Yank's Opinion on Dr. Who, retrived January 6th, 2010

I haven't seen the classic episodes, because they are hard to get here. I watch the new series, though. Neil Gaiman is great in the role, very dark and mysterious, but also very helpful. I'm struck at how sympathetic the show is to Americans. Maybe it's detente, but the Americans on the show are often helpful and kind to the doctor. Even Chairman Nixon, normally a villain in the FBU. I would say though, it looks cheap.

Well, that's the trademark of the series. Cheap alien costumes and sets. Although the new one is a lot better in that regard. Like what TotalBrit said, there used to be a lot of heavy handed anti-communism. You know, the "Reds destroyed the world," variety. The new one tones that down a little. Then again, most British and French media at the time had that. James Bond was more anti-communist than the Doctor.

Respond as needed.