NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been toying with writing something using an alternate setup of the Second World War as the basis for it.

So far, the basic premise is that, instead of descending into National Socialist hell, a visionary democratic leader (I know of no historical personage that would work, so the char's current name is Georg Marder) appears in Germany in the late twenties and slowly builds a merger of moderate opinion in the country. The political situation at the turn of the decade is still awfully nasty, but Marder manages to build a coalition of most non-revolutionary parties in Germany (most importantly the Social Democrats and the Catholic Centre) and gains the support of the army, which helps to quell Communist and Nazi street fighting.

In control of Germany, Marder turns his attention to building up relations with Germany's immediate neighbours and assuring the Western Allies that Germany is no longer the menace to peace it was in 1918. At the same time, Marder uses the looming presence of the Soviet Union to convince the Allied powers to a revision of the Versailles terms. Not an expansionist or a militarist, he does however, believe that a strong Germany is vital to countering Soviet power.

In the meantime, Stalin is consolidating his power in the Soviet Union. As the bane of his existence, Nazi Germany is not in existence, he prepares his nation instead for imperial expansion. Soviet industry and armed might grow exponentially as the economies of most developed nations struggle in the Depression. Hoping to gain allies, Stalin also works to destablize and divide his would-be enemies and encourage Communist revolutions elsewhere.

The Spanish Civil War marks a turning point in Stalin's plans as the Nationalists, without the support of Germany, lose the war. The democratic Republicans soon find themselves at the mercy of the well-organized Communsit elements amongst them. The 1922 Hungarian Communist uprising manages to establish itself instead of miserable failure. France lurches uneasily in political chaos, effectively neutralized. Promised territory in the Middle East and the Balkans in exchange for aid, Turkey is induced into the Soviet alliance. The United States, mired in Depression and heartily tired of Europe, retreats deeper and deeper into isolation. Japan finds itself embroiled in China, which is being more and more effectively supplied by the Soviet Union.

In the meantime, the Red Army, the largest military force in human history is building for a vast invasion of the West. As the Thirties turn into the Forties, the threat of war hangs over Europe.

Fascinating, but wildly implausible.

What I view as historical impossibilities, however, are not relevant to your novel, unless you want to hear them.

The only one that might apply is that the Soviet Union could not outproduce the United States during the Great Depression. Communist countries are not immune from economic downturn in the rest of the world.

It didn't outproduce the US, but the US didn't maintain a huge army. The Soviet Union BUILT its economy up during the Depression. That's when it became an industrial power. Because it was isolated from the global economy.

It didn't outproduce the US, but the US didn't maintain a huge army. The Soviet Union BUILT its economy up during the Depression. That's when it became an industrial power. Because it was isolated from the global economy.
Right, but it's not immune from fluctuations in the global market. For example, when food prices shot through the roof, the Soviet Union also suffered. The also couldn't get access to as many natural resources as they would require in your scenario. I doubt that in a world without Nazi Germany the Soviets would have all of a sudden become the world's leader in all sectors. The West would have been able to focus their efforts on Russia rather than Germany in the 30's, would have seen the threat, and reacted in some way or another.

The Spanish Civil War would not have occurred without the Fascist takeovers in Italy and Germany, because those popularized Fascist ideology and sparked resistance to Spain's liberal democratic government.

Well, Italy is still a Fascist state and the movement was a near-miss in Germany. And the West didn't see the threat of Nazi Germany until it was too late. And the West is hardly a bloc, not to mention the leaders of most of the countries weren't exactly the most brilliant folk at the time.

Besides, it's not like the Soviets could actually win.

Actually, from most accounts the Soviet Union did quite well during the Depression, because of it's limited dependence on foreigners. That is one of the reasons why Communism became so popular in America during the thirties. it seemed that the global capitalist system had failed, and that the somewhat economically more stable socialist system would rise to take it. Interestingly enough, it was Sweden, with its mix of socialism, capitalism, and democracy that managed to provide the best lives for it's citizens during the 30's.

Of course, this is not to say that the Soviet Union did not have it's own set of problems during this time. The Purges were taking place, food and jobs were still short, pogorms were wrapping up, but there was not as much of an unemployment rate as in the States, there were no strikes and protests by WWI veterans and a large population of middle-continental farmers had not been forcibly removed from thier farms to starve to death looking for work in California.

Well, the first bit is in part, almost written as a teaser. The Soviet Union would represent a threat to the world order on the order of Nazi Germany. It's not like it'd have a cakewalk, although I predict it'd have impressive success in an initial offensive on sheer weight, not to mention that most of the Eastern European armies were less than impressive. (Finland and Czechslovakia being exceptions)

Well, Italy is still a Fascist state and the movement was a near-miss in Germany. And the West didn't see the threat of Nazi Germany until it was too late. And the West is hardly a bloc, not to mention the leaders of most of the countries weren't exactly the most brilliant folk at the time.

Besides, it's not like the Soviets could actually win.
They didn't treat it as much of a threat until it was too late, true. Appeasement was their first attempt. Mostly all of the above is true.

The last part is also true.

So I guess we've really been agreeing on most of this stuff.

Well, the first bit is in part, almost written as a teaser. The Soviet Union would represent a threat to the world order on the order of Nazi Germany. It's not like it'd have a cakewalk, although I predict it'd have impressive success in an initial offensive on sheer weight, not to mention that most of the Eastern European armies were less than impressive. (Finland and Czechslovakia being exceptions)
This makes sense.

I think it'd be funny for the Soviets to get stopped and turned around at the siege of a major German city. Which, actually, would be likely. Also, they'd get smacked in the Pacific by Japan (later augmented by the US).

what happened if whent back into time and killed hitler bfore/whil in art school

or even better

ifthe people at hitler's art liked his work and he stayed an artist

what happened if whent back into time and killed hitler bfore/whil in art school

or even better

ifthe people at hitler's art liked his work and he stayed an artist
Play Command & Conquer: Red Alert

The Weimer republic was working. No need for a charismatic leader. A few different policy steps and hyperinflation in the 1920's could have been avoided. Voila, no Nazi Germany! Hitler gets a job as graphic designer for a advertising company representing a brewery. Maybe the turning point in your alternate history is that some world leader pays attention to Maynard Keynes (an economist who argued against heavy reparations) and so doesn't turn the economic screws on Germany.

The Weimer republic was working. No need for a charismatic leader. A few different policy steps and hyperinflation in the 1920's could have been avoided. Voila, no Nazi Germany! Hitler gets a job as graphic designer for a advertising company representing a brewery. Maybe the turning point in your alternate history is that some world leader pays attention to Maynard Keynes (an economist who argued against heavy reparations) and so doesn't turn the economic screws on Germany.
I disagree.

Weimar Germany was a disaster. No public support, had no economic basis, and an unwilling and grumpy military. With no great leaders, it was SCREWED.

what happened if whent back into time and killed hitler bfore/whil in art school

or even better

ifthe people at hitler's art liked his work and he stayed an artist

seeing that Hitler wouldnt be in power, wouldnt necissarily mean that a Nazi Germany wouldnt arise. Hitler in fact did not start the Nazi party, instead he was recruited by them and became its leader... but if it did affect anything, Russia would definently be the problem... mostly because of the nature of the communist doctrine, which is to support revolutionary ideals in countries and expand

seeing that Hitler wouldnt be in power, wouldnt necissarily mean that a Nazi Germany wouldnt arise. Hitler in fact did not start the Nazi party, instead he was recruited by them and became its leader... but if it did affect anything, Russia would definently be the problem... mostly because of the nature of the communist doctrine, which is to support revolutionary ideals in countries and expand

Ironically he was sent by the police (he was a corporal in WW1 with an Iron Cross for bravery) to spy on the Nazi party and there he turned to 'the Dark Side'.

Cathenia

A tangent you may want to invovle is China. The head of the Chinese Communist Intelligence wing was living IN Austria and travelled to Spain during the 30s. He only escaped by the skin of his teeth, as the Austrian authorites (very anti-communist) along with the French spy service, had cottoned on to what the chinaman was really doing there. I forget his name, I'm quite sorry. He went on to lead the Chinese Intelligence agency until a less than a decade before his death. Since you're already playing about with history, perhaps you could make China a part of the picture, abreviating the length of the Revolutionary War. If the Chinese Communists hadn't experienced their falling out with the USSR, things would have been more interesting yet. The "Red Menace" would have been much more substantial.

Interesting points from all. I tend to think that it would've required an extremely charismatic and gifted leader to maintain a democratic state in Germany, since it would require forging a consensus (and political alliance) between parties as disparate as the Social Democrats and the moderate right wing in order to provide mass in the centre against A.) Communists, and B.) Nazis.

As for the point about Hitler and the rise of the state, I don't think the Nazis would have come to power without a leader of his charisma. As horrible as it all is, Hitler was a genius at playing to mass sentiment, especially in a screwed-up place like Germany. But the whole point is to NOT have Nazi Germany, so hence, there will not be one. Historically, the Communists had a pretty good chance of revolution in Germany.

China does play an important role, although I haven't fully fleshed it out yet. At the very least, it bogs down Japan badly during the period. An earlier overthrow of the government by Communist forces is entirely possible, though, from a story perspective. As for Japan thrashing the USSR in the Pacific, that's not necessarily the case.

There were a few major battles along the Russo-Japanese frontier in the late Thirties, most notably at Khalkin Gol. The result was a fairly decisive Russian victory, and the Japanese never bothered the Russians again, much to the chagrin of their German allies. Thus, almost forty divisions (I think, not sure of the exact number) from the area could be sent and help save Moscow in winter 1941.

As for the progress of the war, I'm envisioning a massive westward offensive that would be stopped roughly at the north-south line of Berlin, Prague and Vienna. (they don't line up exactly, but it's reasonably close) There might be a locally successful Russian offensive in the south, which might manage to just get into Italy but I doubt that lasting success will be the case. With British and American troops coming into the theatre, however, the days of Russian glory are sharply numbered.

China, unless I change it, is mostly useful to tie Japanese forces down (even though the Russians can and have beaten them, they can't really spare the forces) and force Britain to maintain garrisons in its South Asian territories 'just in case'. Communist Spain will be defeated rather quickly, although a lot of British and Portuguese troops will have to stay in order to keep guerillas down for awhile. Hungary, being small and a plain, will fall as soon as the luck of the Soviets run out.

It willl take the Allies awhile to finally break the Soviets, though, since they have to cross from positions more than likely in the broad north-south line of Danzig/Breslau/Bratislava/Zagreb into the heart of the Soviet Union. However, due to tactically, doctrinally and technologically superior (and as Americans increasingly enter, numerically as well, but not by a huge margin) Allied forces, the Soviets fall back losing enormous casualties.

On the spring 1943 offensive (assuming 1941 as a start date for the war), Allied forces win a series of dramatic victories and manage to encircle and destroy entire Russian armies. Although Soviet leaders like Zhukov and Konev are capable and ruthless leaders in their own right, the cause is slowly but surely being beaten back.

Due to diplomatic reasons (everyone's second choice), I think that Eisenhower might find himself the Supreme Command of ETO operations again. However, much of the Allied strategy is carried out by his German chief of staff, Erich von Manstein (the architect of the Manstein Plan, which IRL allowed the Germans to steamroll numerically and technically superior Allied forces in 1940, as well as a successful counteroffensive AFTER Stalingrad). However, the Allies face enormous logistical problems and mounting casualties of their own. The irascible main British commander, Montgomery finds himself constantly at loggerheads with Eisenhower, and also the leading tank generals, Patton and Rommel.

However, victory will ultimately be theirs in 1944. By the end of the campaigning season of 1943, the Allies have established themselves at positions along the Soviet borders. A relatively minor but stunning victory, the seizure of Murmansk and Archangelsk is accomplished by an expeditionary force of largely Canadian (and some British) troops, allowing for operations in 1944 to free occupied Finland. By the beginning of October 1944, the Allied forces march through Moscow.

bumpity

Sounds good so far. I have once read a book that consisted of alternate historical stories, there were three dealing with WW II. In it the communists took over Germany instead of the Nazis, but otherwise the action is pretty much the same as in reality. Communist Germany and the SU are allied at first and roll over Europe, then Germany attacks the SU, in this story because of tensions and disagreements that have been building up massively over the time. So not very creative.
The second story goes with history as it was for a while until the German troops reach Warsaw. Stalin already has built two prototypes of nuclear bombs at that time and realizes Hitlers intentions. So at the German celebration for the victory over Poland (with Hitler being in Warsaw) he sends all the air force he can assemble and dops a nuclear bomb ove Warsaw, effectively taking out a great deal of German elite troops plus Hitler. After the death of the Führer, German combat units soon break.
The third story ends WW II before it really started. Because of extremely bad weather, Nazi Germany was not able to use its Air Force against the Polish troops, Polish cavalry managed to score some great victorys over German infantry and the whole invasion gets stuck. The Blitzkreig is an utter failure, giving France and Britian time to react. Hitler finds itself entalged in a two front war soon after and is defeated. The German high command has to sign the capitulation on a french war ship, which is escorted by british and polish ships. Germany is split into three occupation zones, a british, a french and a polish one.

Without Germany we would have been fucked by Soviets. Of course there was the Lappland which was burned by germans but they helped us to modernize our defense lines in early 30´s.

Well, Germany would still be on the Finnish side in this scenario. Although, I'm not sure how much they'd be able to help. Given the sheer manpower of the Soviet Union, I think they'd be able to break the Mannerheim Line and occupy the country. (although at massive cost and with continuing partisan problems)

My .02

if the Japanese can beat Russia, they could whip China no problem (they did in real life, after all).

Your SHAPE staff is fun as well, though I have an idea that Eisenhower would have picked Rommel over Patton, who had to beg his way back into the final push.

Well, they'd both be up there. Although Rommel would be easier to work with. I'll refrain from judgement on their relative talents, though. Monty and Patton, their talents aside, were bastards. The shape of the Allied supreme command is rather speculative, of course and it's a bit of an "all-star" arrangement.

The Japanese were defeated twice by the Russians in border battles. They WERE more than capable of beating Chinese forces in even battle, however, the Chinese knew that and tended to use guerilla tactics and blow up dams on rivers. China was simply too big and vast for Japan to really conquer. If the Japanese really wanted to take it to Russia (and a more serious attack would be coin toss or favoring the Japanese), they'd have to probably keep themselves in Manchuria and stay out of the main part of China.

As for Japan whipping China IRL, the answer is a colossal 'sort of', IMO. Chinese forces had little chance in direct open combat, however, it was a deadly running sore for Japan which tied up the majority of its ground forces and a lot of its expenditure which would've been better spent fighting the US in the Pacific islands.

Fundamentally, though, the Japanese weren't as strong in large scale-ground fighting as they were in jungle fighting or the naval/aerial action of the IRL Pacific theatre. Which reminds me of one loose end ... what happens with Japan afterwards. Do they restrict themselves to Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan (as the Allies would likely be able to live with) or do they try to form an East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere?

Hmm ...

Weimar Germany was a disaster. No public support, had no economic basis, and an unwilling and grumpy military. With no great leaders, it was SCREWED.

Why do you think it was screwed? No economic basis? I thought they had the same economic basis Germany pretty much always had. People working, making and doing stuff. No economic basis as opposed to what? What economic basis didn't they have that the Nazi's did? I did point out removing hyperinflation from the equation. No public support? Hitler got arrested and thrown in jail when we tried a coup. He decided that he had to gain power by the ballot box. Sounds like the basic idea of representative democracy was pretty well accepted if not extremely deeply entrenched. An unwilling and grumpy millitary? What millitary? One hundred thousand soldiers? Or do you mean unemployed vets? When you say with no great leaders it was screwed, what do you mean by that? You'll have to say what you mean by a great leader. Do you mean like Bill Clinton? Someone who presidered over an improving economy, or someone liked Churchill, who wasn't terribly effective, but became leader at a pivital point in history?

bumpity

But I'll also answer the question about the Weimar Republic. I don't think it was doing very well at all. The parties were constantly squabbling with each other, and there wasn't a very strong democratic culture (that takes time). The army was small, but it was still influential, as it had been the premier German institution for quite some time. And neither the Reichswehr or the veterans were enthusiastic about democracy. As well, people tended to blame the Republic for the economic woes which happened.

If I'm not wrong, hyperinflation was basically a result of paying off the Allied war reparations, by in part, printing too much money. Even though this was the most famous problem, there was the more general problems of readjusting the national economy in a new frame, ie, without massive military-industrial complex and with less territory. Most of the territory Germany lost wasn't prime real estate, but the loss of the iron mines in Alsace did hurt.

As well, the Allied occupation of the Rhineland hurt as the French attempted and briefly succeeded (I think) in taking over production there. Also, the Depression wiped out global trade just when Germany was starting to recover. I would think only a leader of real talent and charisma could pull the Weimar Republic out of the situation that it was in and make it work.

The Weimer republic had many problems, but if other nations had regarded it as important to protect Germanys transition to democracy instead of regarding the Weimer republic as a sort of debt collection agency, then there is no reason why it could not have worked. Democracy does have some self correcting features. When you say they needed a leader of real talent and charisma, I think of someone like Putin who reverses democratic refoms and buillds an authoritarian state. I doubt if a leader like that would be good for the long term health of the country.

The Japanese were defeated twice by the Russians in border battles. They WERE more than capable of beating Chinese forces in even battle, however, the Chinese knew that and tended to use guerilla tactics and blow up dams on rivers. China was simply too big and vast for Japan to really conquer. If the Japanese really wanted to take it to Russia (and a more serious attack would be coin toss or favoring the Japanese), they'd have to probably keep themselves in Manchuria and stay out of the main part of China.

As for Japan whipping China IRL, the answer is a colossal 'sort of', IMO. Chinese forces had little chance in direct open combat, however, it was a deadly running sore for Japan which tied up the majority of its ground forces and a lot of its expenditure which would've been better spent fighting the US in the Pacific islands.

Fundamentally, though, the Japanese weren't as strong in large scale-ground fighting as they were in jungle fighting or the naval/aerial action of the IRL Pacific theatre. Which reminds me of one loose end ... what happens with Japan afterwards. Do they restrict themselves to Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan (as the Allies would likely be able to live with) or do they try to form an East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere?

Hmm ...
My initial comment about Japan crushing Russia concerned the Pacific, not any territory inside East Asia or Russia itself. The point was that Japan could impose an absolute lockdown of the Pacific Coast. Russian troops would have to travel by land to the Western front, and any naval reserves would be trapped in their ports. Beyond that, Japan would likely be caught up in China, and would only able to pressure Russia a slight amount.

Given the losses they'd sustain fighting Eastern Russia and China, they wouldn't be able to expand much beyond Manchuria, Korea, and Taiwan - especially if they're worried about pissing the US the hell off.

BTW, whose side is Italy on given that they're Fascist? And can we be assured that Japan isn't on Russia's side and China on the side of the Allies (this assumes a non-Communist China).

The US would be the big wild card.

US sentiment was generally against involvement in the war, until after the attack at Pearl Harbor (and the subsequent declarations of war by Germany and Italy). So, without an unlikely Russo-Japanese alliance, how do you plan to involve the US?

Japan and China would probably end up being a side show. The Chinese civil war would be much as it was - a three way fight between the Nationalist, the Communist, and the Japanese. And if Japan did a Pearl Harbor, the whole Pacific war would probably be divorced from the war in Europe. (Now that's an interesting idea... two entierly separate major wars.)

Spain likely would not fight, just having ended a civil war. (There would have been a civil war even if Italy had not been Fascist, as the main reason for the war was because Spain was very Catholic and the government was very anti Catholic, despite what an earlier person said.)

I typed that in earlier and the realized I had it backwards. Oh well, I'll blame early senility. :D

China is an odd case, in that for centuries even the Emperors had trouble making sure the outer provinces obeyed. Peasants out there were quick to point out that the Emperor ruled from far, far away. China and Russia both are huge countries, with similiar cultures and history, to a point.

So... I see the point about the Japs holding Russian ports hostage, recalling the fact that Russia has exactly one warm water, Pacific port. It'd be easy for the Japanese navy.

Italy would be a member of the Allies. China would be pseudo-allied with Russia, since the Russians would be keeping them armed to hold down the Japanese. The Japanese would likely be locking down the coast as you said, although they wouldn't be able to do much more than keep a dozen or so divisions in Manchuria due to the troubles in China.

The United States IS a wild card. Suggestions are welcome.

Italy would be a member of the Allies. China would be pseudo-allied with Russia, since the Russians would be keeping them armed to hold down the Japanese. The Japanese would likely be locking down the coast as you said, although they wouldn't be able to do much more than keep a dozen or so divisions in Manchuria due to the troubles in China.

How are you going to deal with the civil war? It started well before your scenario. And while the KMT did have Soviet advisors, Chiang dismissed them in 1926. Also, the KMT was more interested in fighting the CCP, up until the 1937 invasion, and even after that, the two were still fighting.
As for Manchuria, Manchuko had already been pretty solidly in Japanese hands when it was broken off from China.

The United States IS a wild card. Suggestions are welcome.

1) Japan keeps smart, and sticks to China, and the US stays out altogether

2) Japan attacks US, but not the European colonies - two entierly separate wars
a) Both stary out out Europe-USSR conflict, war resolved separately
b) US beats Japan, takes Japan's Chinese possessions, and is seen as a threat by USSR, which attacks

3) Japan attacks US and European colonies
4) US-USSR against Europe-Japan - Europe lends support to Japan to fight in China.

5) Japan and the US kiss and make up (with a possible three way war - US-Japan vs Europe vs USSR - US and Japan divide up East Asia - China split between the two)

5) Japan and the US kiss and make up (with a possible three way war - US-Japan vs Europe vs USSR - US and Japan divide up East Asia - China split between the two)


Huh? How did you get there? US-Japan vs Europe?

How are you going to deal with the civil war? It started well before your scenario. And while the KMT did have Soviet advisors, Chiang dismissed them in 1926. Also, the KMT was more interested in fighting the CCP, up until the 1937 invasion, and even after that, the two were still fighting.
As for Manchuria, Manchuko had already been pretty solidly in Japanese hands when it was broken off from China.



1) Japan keeps smart, and sticks to China, and the US stays out altogether

2) Japan attacks US, but not the European colonies - two entierly separate wars
a) Both stary out out Europe-USSR conflict, war resolved separately
b) US beats Japan, takes Japan's Chinese possessions, and is seen as a threat by USSR, which attacks

3) Japan attacks US and European colonies
4) US-USSR against Europe-Japan - Europe lends support to Japan to fight in China.

5) Japan and the US kiss and make up (with a possible three way war - US-Japan vs Europe vs USSR - US and Japan divide up East Asia - China split between the two)

Without the Japanese invasion, the Nationalists might have beaten the Communists. Very badly.

Huh? How did you get there? US-Japan vs Europe?

Just throwing out a possibilty. :)
Consider the Spanish-American war and the US taking Spanish colonies. It wouldn't be the most likely scenario, but could be in the ralm of the possible, that the US could try and scoop up or split with Japan, say, French Indo-China (Vietnam War, anyone?), Malaysia, Singapore, Southern China, and the Dutch East Indies. Motivation? Expansion of US interests. Casus belli? Open to suggestion.

Yep, Dragons Bay, they were on there way to it.

Makes for more fun suggestions:
6) Japan doesn't invade China or attack Pearl Harbor, KMT wins, no war in Asia at all

7) Japan doesn't invade, KMT winning, Russia attacks China directly in support of CCP (possibly going through Manchuko as well, bringing Japan in)

The Polish-Soviet War of the early 20s was a major turning point in the future of Europe at that time. It all started when the Red Army was sent to help out their German Communist Comrades take over post WWI Germany. They marched through Poland without bothering to ask the Poles, who aren't very happy about it and so war broke out.

The Soviets lost and Germany become Facist.

But what if the Soviets had won?

Me thinks it wouldn't have been long before they got carried away and tried to take over the rest of Europe.

If the Japanese hadn't invaded China, which is somewhat unlikely given their desperate need for resources, etc, etc, and the KMT succeeded in unifying the country, the Soviets would have a powerful ally. Since Stalin preferred the Nationalists (at least for the moment) to the Communists in China, it might serve to make the Communist Axis (so to speak) more powerful than it otherwise would've been.

Which, of course, might've dragged Japan into China as a part of the war, anyway. The established Japanese colonies in Korea and Taiwan would've been threatened by a massively underdeveloped but enormous Chinese nation, with Soviet support.

I don't think the US would've allied with Japan to seize the colonies of other European nations. Especially not the British ones, since their relations were generally fairly good. Besides, as the war developed, it became quite clear that the biggest US interests were in maintaining an open global market to sell all of the stuff it made, since at the end of the war, it made half of all of the stuff.

So ... if a newly aggressive Nationalist China decides to threaten Japan, we might see a European-Japanese alliance against the Soviet Union and China. With the United States perhaps acting as officially neutral but favoring the Europeans and Japanese, ie, through lend-lease? I don't think the US would EVER ally itself with the Soviet Union while it was trying to destroy the Western democracies. Only the appearance of a genuinely worse threat (Nazi Germany) got that alliance to happen. IMO, anyway. :D

If the Japanese hadn't invaded China, which is somewhat unlikely given their desperate need for resources, etc, etc, and the KMT succeeded in unifying the country, the Soviets would have a powerful ally. Since Stalin preferred the Nationalists (at least for the moment) to the Communists in China, it might serve to make the Communist Axis (so to speak) more powerful than it otherwise would've been.

Which, of course, might've dragged Japan into China as a part of the war, anyway. The established Japanese colonies in Korea and Taiwan would've been threatened by a massively underdeveloped but enormous Chinese nation, with Soviet support.

I don't think the US would've allied with Japan to seize the colonies of other European nations. Especially not the British ones, since their relations were generally fairly good. Besides, as the war developed, it became quite clear that the biggest US interests were in maintaining an open global market to sell all of the stuff it made, since at the end of the war, it made half of all of the stuff.

So ... if a newly aggressive Nationalist China decides to threaten Japan, we might see a European-Japanese alliance against the Soviet Union and China. With the United States perhaps acting as officially neutral but favoring the Europeans and Japanese, ie, through lend-lease? I don't think the US would EVER ally itself with the Soviet Union while it was trying to destroy the Western democracies. Only the appearance of a genuinely worse threat (Nazi Germany) got that alliance to happen. IMO, anyway. :D

So there you go - Europe-Japan vs USSR and client states, with the US nominally neutral. :)

I likes that. Should have interesting implications for the peacetime role of the US in the postwar world.

Hmm....a compeltely untouched Us after this alternative second WW without any other super power checking them? Sounds rather...frightening. But also interesting...kinda seems like unchallenged world domination politically as well as economically of a healthy US over a war ridden world.

It's not like the US really suffered that much during the war. I don't mean to trivialize the approximately 400,000 dead, but as a percentage of the population (125 million-ish, I believe), it's tiny. And no SIGNIFICANT part of the US was ever occupied. The continental US was virtually completely unscathed.

I think the US would actually lose a bit from not being involved, since it never built up a colossal armed force like it did in WWII. As well, it wouldn't gain the powerful moral authority as much. And, actually, a lot of countries would probably be better off than in IRL WWII. The US would be economically dominant, at it had been for some time, but it wouldn't have the same military power. Still, it would hold the debts of a lot of countries.

No nuclear weapons likely either for the US, at least not by 1945. That reminds me of another techincal question ... is a German Bomb at all feasible? Keeping in mind that the scientific base of this Germany is actually rather stronger than the Third Reich, due to its non-persecution of Jews and relatively enlightened government. But I know there was other stuff. I imagine it'd be easier to get raw material.

bump

Hmm....a compeltely untouched Us after this alternative second WW without any other super power checking them? Sounds rather...frightening. But also interesting...kinda seems like unchallenged world domination politically as well as economically of a healthy US over a war ridden world.
The US would be screwed by not being part of the war. It revitalized our economy and created the enormous and powerful military we have today. We would likely be a large-scale version of the weaker European countries immediately after the war.

Assuming Roosevelt is President, however, I can't see him staying out of this war.

Who was the other candidate in the 1940 election? It was 1940, right? Or, alternately, earlier. Although I'm definitely still at the process of working on stuff. Although a neutral US does make things more interesting.

Who was the other candidate in the 1940 election? It was 1940, right? Or, alternately, earlier. Although I'm definitely still at the process of working on stuff. Although a neutral US does make things more interesting.
Roosevelt's elections:
1924 <Ran as VP, lost>
1932 - Herbert Hoover, I'd think.
1936 - Wendell Willkie
1940
1944

That's all off the top of my head. This would be a easy google.

1940, if I recall, is Dewey. I could be wrong.

NO.

32 is Hoover
36 is Landon
40 is Willkie
44 is Dewey

Cool. Thanks. :D

1940, if I recall, is Dewey. I could be wrong.

NO.

32 is Hoover
36 is Landon
40 is Willkie
44 is Dewey

I thought dewey was '48. Did he run twice. I could google but I am lazy.

You're right about the build up of US military power, Deutsches-Brabant.
The German bomb was probably the most feasable. They might even have tested on: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4348497.stm
(Lots of skepticism on that, though.)
UK maybe next?
And Roosevelt was having a hard time convincing the public to go to war brefore Pearl Harbor.


I thought dewey was '48. Did he run twice. I could google but I am lazy.

Thomas Dewey ran both times.


http://www.multied.com/elections/1944.html
http://www.multied.com/elections/1948.html

I would probably tend to agree. The Germans were probably the world leaders in physics until Hitler decided to persecute the Jews (no more Einstein) and other scientists also decided to leave the country. I'm not sure about this, but I think the Germans might end up with more consistently advanced stuff than IRL, due to a better scientific base and the lack of a totalitarian climate, which tends to impede science.

I'm talking about a year or two, of course, not a decade. Enough maybe to get a German atom bomb to finish off the Russians near the end.

I would probably tend to agree. The Germans were probably the world leaders in physics until Hitler decided to persecute the Jews (no more Einstein) and other scientists also decided to leave the country. I'm not sure about this, but I think the Germans might end up with more consistently advanced stuff than IRL, due to a better scientific base and the lack of a totalitarian climate, which tends to impede science.

I'm talking about a year or two, of course, not a decade. Enough maybe to get a German atom bomb to finish off the Russians near the end.

Also consider general military technology and theory.
Some points:
Hitler's intereference in strategy messed up a lot of his generals work (the delay of Barbarossa for example, which resulted in it's being launched late.)

Hitler also managed to delay the Sturmgewher 44, for example, because he wanted SMGs instead. http://www.onwar.com/articles/f0211.htm

On the other side, the Soviets had the first airborne units.

this is an awesome thread!

I do this stuff with my friends all the time!

The Soviets actually had a lot of innovations, although they lost a lot of them through the officer's purges. By the way, I'm looking at around 1941 as the start date for the war. Regarding military doctrine and general technology, I think you're generally right. I would imagine that the assault rifle might make its way into the forces a bit earlier. Although I don't know if the V-1 and V-2 would get as much emphasis, as they aren't as 'war-winning' as, say, better tanks or infantry weapons would be.

If you want to work with something, Hitler might not have come to power without the Great Depression or may not have succeeded if the elections had been a bit later.

That's interesting, although I don't think I can really change the German politics part now without scrappnig pretty much everything I've thought about thus far. It also gives me an original character to work things around a bit, from a literary perspective.

So ... if the US remains neutral (more interesting), you more or less get ... I might of missed something, if so, simply mention it.

The Allies:
Albania (the global superpower of the era)
Australia
Baltic States
Britain
Canada
Bulgaria
Czechoslovakia
Finland
France (only joins later in the war when a hawkish government is elected)
Germany
Greece
Italy
Japan
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Romania
Spanish Nationalists (Spanish civil war resumes?)
Sweden (invaded by USSR to gain iron ore deposits needed by Germany)
Turkey
Yugoslavia

The Communists: (Soviet Union plus client states)
China
Hungary
Spanish Communists (civil war is linked to the wider battle)
USSR

My guess is that the result will be an Allied (ie, European Allies plus Japan) victory in three years. It'll be shorter since there will be more or less constant combat on the main fronts (in China and in Eastern Europe). The Communist powers will probably have numerical superiority for virtually the entire war, but the Allies utterly control the seas. (The US isn't going to particularly object to a lockdown of China and Russia, better markets are in Britain and Germany and Russia anyway)

The Allies will also, not necessarily at first, but definitely later, possess air superiority, both of quality and quantity. The Soviet Union's productive capabilities were significant, but not greater than that of Germany (a Germany that's on war economy from the getgo), Britain, Japan, the others, and, a bit later, France combined. China's industrial base is insignificant.

If 1941 is a year of near-disaster for Europe (less so for Japan, one would suspect), 1942 will probably be a very mixed year, with perhaps a limited success in an early Soviet offensive but the beginning of real trouble. 1943 will probably see the Soviets get more or less pushed out of all the territory they occupied, while the Japanese continue to fight the Chinese with some (limited) assistence from the European Allies.

Victory in early-mid 1944 with the detonation of 1-2 German nuclear weapons over two Soviet cities (maybe Stalingrad and Nizhiy Novgorod?). Casualties would be on the same order as the IRL Second World War, a little less for some countries, a bit more for others. The war in China might drag on for longer than the one in Russia, although a peace might be concluded with Chaing Kai-Shek.

bump