NationStates Jolt Archive

Any of you familiar with the PC game "Command and Conquer: Red Alert" knows this scenario.

Adolf Hitler has been killed before reaching any prominence (specifically, by Albert Einstein in a time machine). Time passes. Eventually (the year is not specified) Stalin's Soviet Union absorbs Poland and launches an attack on Germany--a member of the Allies--from there. Any discussion on what would happen?

-Would the Spanish Civil War have ended differently with no German intervention? Or, would the Western nations have sent them more aid because of the feared Communist menace?

-Would there have been any way the Finnish Winter War would have been conducted differently? Would the Allies have intervened?

-Would Poland have been absorbed that easily? Or would appeasement have probably not been used against a Communist government?

-Would Stalin have managed to stumble into a war against Germany, France, and England? How would Weimar Germany hold against a well-prepared Soviet invasion?

-Would fascist Italy have been an Allied nation? Or, would Mussolini have done his own agenda? Could/would he seek a non-aggression pact with the Soviets?

-If world war broke out, how early would the United States intervene against Communism?

-What about the Asian front? Would Mao and Stalin have a better relationship? If so, would Japan intervene on the side of the Nationalists?

-Would Japan have joined the Allies? Or, rather, would Stalin have focused on arming against Japan before committing very much aggression in the west? Would they have kept the non-aggression pact in this version, with Stalin allowing Japan to war against China and the Pacific and Japan leaving Russia alone?

-In the case of an Allied victory, would there be a Cold War between the victors? How about with a Soviet victory?

Here's a nice list to ramble about. Post any more, or any comments. I'm not a particular expert on this time period, so don't make too much fun of me if I overlooked something obvious.

Wow. I guess no one cares or has anything to say. Ah well, guess it's lockable.

The US probably would have sent troops to crush the Spanish anarchist revolution,
Even though it was not "Soviet Union trying to take over the world".

The US ruling class hates a 'good example' of people running things on their own. It doesn't fit into their work of fiction that people need to be told what to do.
Oh, plus they fear actually having to get a job.
They like slaves. Wage slaves.

Without Hitler, Stalin would have had a lot of fun CONTROLLING THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE FROM HIS FROZEN BODY'S WRITHING BRAIN

or maybe it would be just like red alert. That game sux anyway and i only have the allied disc so i LOSE at single player

Without Hitler, Stalin would have had a lot of fun CONTROLLING THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE FROM HIS FROZEN BODY'S WRITHING BRAIN

or maybe it would be just like red alert. That game sux anyway and i only have the allied disc so i LOSE at single player

Oh, the final assault on Moscow's a marathon!

And the whole "deactivate the four launched atom bombs before they hit every major Allied capital" level is intense like nothing other. I liked the game.

Any of you familiar with the PC game "Command and Conquer: Red Alert" knows this scenario.

Adolf Hitler has been killed before reaching any prominence (specifically, by Albert Einstein in a time machine). Time passes. Eventually (the year is not specified) Stalin's Soviet Union absorbs Poland and launches an attack on Germany--a member of the Allies--from there. Any discussion on what would happen?

-Would the Spanish Civil War have ended differently with no German intervention? Or, would the Western nations have sent them more aid because of the feared Communist menace?

-Would there have been any way the Finnish Winter War would have been conducted differently? Would the Allies have intervened?

-Would Poland have been absorbed that easily? Or would appeasement have probably not been used against a Communist government?

-Would Stalin have managed to stumble into a war against Germany, France, and England? How would Weimar Germany hold against a well-prepared Soviet invasion?

-Would fascist Italy have been an Allied nation? Or, would Mussolini have done his own agenda? Could/would he seek a non-aggression pact with the Soviets?

-If world war broke out, how early would the United States intervene against Communism?

-What about the Asian front? Would Mao and Stalin have a better relationship? If so, would Japan intervene on the side of the Nationalists?

-Would Japan have joined the Allies? Or, rather, would Stalin have focused on arming against Japan before committing very much aggression in the west? Would they have kept the non-aggression pact in this version, with Stalin allowing Japan to war against China and the Pacific and Japan leaving Russia alone?

-In the case of an Allied victory, would there be a Cold War between the victors? How about with a Soviet victory?

Here's a nice list to ramble about. Post any more, or any comments. I'm not a particular expert on this time period, so don't make too much fun of me if I overlooked something obvious.What I find totally illogical with the Red Alert historical story line is that although WW2 supposedly didn't happen, the borders in the game would not have been the same without it. Germany would still have had East Prussia and Poland wouldn't have been moved West.

I recently read a book called "Rising Sun Victorious".

It was an alternate history/what if scenario, on Japan, in the south pacific theater of WW2.
Had the outcomes of a few key naval battles not happened as they did, or if Japan had pressed a major offensive on the US after Pearl Harbor, the outcome of Japans fate, may have been dramatically different.

Germany, however, seems the be the lynchpin in WW2.
With the Germans, it could be reasoned that neither Italy, nor Japan would have declared open warfare on the rest of the world, the United States, in particular.
The Germans had the strong ground forces, and navy, and the industrializational capacity to wage such a war.

However, if Russia and the United States had not formed that tenous, nebulous relationship, as allies in WW2, I have to wonder, if the nuclear proliferation, and arms race, would have happened decades sooner than it really did.
I have to ask if the Cuban Missle Crisis might have become the opening stages of WWIII.

Hard to say.

I have to ask if the Cuban Missle Crisis might have become the opening stages of WWIII.

Hard to say.

Mmm, not really. Given that the Germans and Japan were actively researching nuclear weapons at that point of time, it might have resulted in some tit for tat (limited by production capacity, no insta world doomed scenario) for a while until everybody realizes that they would lose out if they kept this up. Either way, they might end up stopping the use of nukes altogether without even a formal treaty. Kind of like poison gas and why it wasn't used in the 2nd WW as a battlefield weapon.

The US probably would have sent troops to crush the Spanish anarchist revolution,
Even though it was not "Soviet Union trying to take over the world".

The US ruling class hates a 'good example' of people running things on their own.
Correct, anytime there is a successful left-wing movement, the US absolutely must destroy it, to ensure that there are no visible alternatives to capitalism.

You people probably would have loved what life was like before the ascension of computer games. Before you could use a computer to simulate strategy games, there were zounds of wargames that consisted of small playing pieces and paper maps on all sorts of real battles and counterfactual scenarios. "SS Amerika" for instance depicted the invasion of the US according to German war plans while there was another one that considered the war between Germany and Japan after they'd divided the world among themselves.

I don't know too much about the era, myself, but I have a couple thoughts.

I think Italy might have allied with the Soviet Union. They say that Mussolini had enacted some pro-Communist legislation before he came under Hitler's influence and became a Fascist.

I think most likely they'd have appeased the Soviets up until a point, like they did Hitler, for much of the same reasons. Also, the U.S., from what I understand, did give the Soviets aid at some point during the '20s. This leads me to believe that the U.S., if not also the Allies, might have been not too hostile to the Soviets if they tried to make a land grab. (Perhaps not Poland, after all, that was the line that Hitler crossed, but I think Finland would have been given up easily.)

I think that if World War had broken out, Stalin's atrocities would have come to light a lot sooner than they did, and by '43 or so most people would know about them, and be able to make an informed decision on whether to support or oppose him.

I think Italy might have allied with the Soviet Union. They say that Mussolini had enacted some pro-Communist legislation before he came under Hitler's influence and became a Fascist.*Cough* Mussolini was Hitler's inspiration to form a fascist state. His Beerhall Putch was based completely on Mussolinis march on Rome. Mussolini was a fascist long before Hitler had German citizenship.

*Cough* Mussolini was Hitler's inspiration to form a fascist state. His Beerhall Putch was based completely on Mussolinis march on Rome. Mussolini was a fascist long before Hitler had German citizenship.
Really? Then I must have heard wrong.

Really? Then I must have heard wrong.
As far sa I know Mussolini was some kind of communist and syndicalist before he invented fascism. That's why the original fascism incorporates syndicalist traits and is anti-capitalist.

Really? Then I must have heard wrong.Yeah, Hitler managed to bully around Mussolini later on, but Mussolini was the original fascist (which is why some people claim that Nazism is an evil perversion of the good idea of Fascism :rolleyes: ). Hitler originally wanted to have the Sturmabteilung (SA) wearing black shirts like Mussolini's "blackshirts", but he got offered some brown cloth rather cheaply, so brown became the predominant Nazi color. Once he could afford it, though, he made black the favored color (the SS).

http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/world/lectures/fascism.html

The socialists dominate in the Italian elections of 1919 and made Italian fascism a political force.

Hitler's Munich Putsch in 1923 came in the year of the great inflation when the communists figured on seizing power in Berlin.

So ...yup, Italia had gli primera fascistas...

[QUOTE=Shingogogol]The US probably would have sent troops to crush the Spanish anarchist revolution,

I'm sorry but I have to say that you're talking nonsense. There were no Spanish Anarchist revolution but a Democratically elected left goverment. Due to the military-fascist action, and 'cause the Gov ha better things to do, there was some rural areas where the anarchist trade union tried to create libertarian communes, but as the gov controlled back the loyal area, the anarchist experiment dissapeared.

Anyway, anarchists were the bigger left enemies to Comunism. What Allies made with the Spanish Republic was a crime, triying to appease the Axis, like they did with Czecoslovaquia (I don't know how to spell it correctly in English). But remember that having Stalin's aid does not become in his buddy, although, of course, as he was the only important support to democracy in Spain, his influence growth, but whom was the responsible?

What I find totally illogical with the Red Alert historical story line is that although WW2 supposedly didn't happen, the borders in the game would not have been the same without it. Germany would still have had East Prussia and Poland wouldn't have been moved West.

An excellent point. I wasn't very critical when I first played the game so many years ago, and now it won't load on my newfangled XP computer! :(

If I remember correctly, though, there were also no Baltic states. I can't remember in the slightest whether the Soviets had Bessarrabia or not at the game's start.

You people probably would have loved what life was like before the ascension of computer games . . .

I'm still a big fan of Diplomacy and Axis and Allies, the latter for its cooperative spirit (I'm a team player, you see, which puts me at a disadvantage in games like Diplomacy and Risk). The problem with Axis and Allies is that there's no real way to edit the map so that a Confederate States exists in World War II, like my favorite Alternative History writer Harry Turtledove compiles so masterfully.

I'm sorry but I have to say that you're talking nonsense. There were no Spanish Anarchist revolution but a Democratically elected left goverment. Due to the military-fascist action, and 'cause the Gov ha better things to do, there was some rural areas where the anarchist trade union tried to create libertarian communes, but as the gov controlled back the loyal area, the anarchist experiment dissapeared.

Which is one of the reasons why I think anarchism cannot work: even if you have a utopia, someone more organized is going to have a mind to stop you. If you organize against them... well, there goes the anarchy.

I've heard that the Republicans had several elements to them: democrats, anarchists, Trotskyites, Catalan autonomists, Basque separatists (about the only conservative group with the Republicans, I believe) and good ol' Stalinists. So let's keep pretending: say that the Soviet-backed Republicans somehow triumph over the Italian-backed fascists (however unlikely that would have been). What sort of compromise government would have been reached? Would Juan Negrín have still come to power, perhaps leading a neutral Spain as Franco did?

My mind flickers with fantastical thoughts of a separatist triumph, having 'Euskadi' and 'Cataluña' appear in the northeast corners of Iberia's map. I find that prospect would have been unlikely, however.

Well, I guess that if Hitler had been killed, Germany would have somehow managed to get rid of the economic crisis.

Since it was the first economic/industrial/scientific power, I guess that the power it'd have sided with would have won ? Hence the point is to know what system they would have gone for ? Capitalist ? Communist ? Bit of both (like France)?

I see the opposition US/USSR has a very american point of view. Have you ever realized that without WWII, Europe would be, by far, the leading power ? i don't mean the EU, but Germany, UK or even France (let's dream a little, and I'm french by the way) would be roughly on the same level as the USA (which would not be the superpower).

Adj

Here is something else to consider, WWII marked the end (for the most part) of European colonies. Would there still be colonies today? If so, I think the European countries would be much more powerful. If not, I think the US accendancy would happen.

Here is something else to consider, WWII marked the end (for the most part) of European colonies. Would there still be colonies today? If so, I think the European countries would be much more powerful. If not, I think the US accendancy would happen.

A vital point, WW2 marked the point of imperial overstretch for the British Empire, and they were left with a choice, cling to the past or try and re-forge the home country.

I think with no WW2, the indian sub-continent would have still become independent, probably late 50s (possibly with the greater time span to build an independence movement, there wouldn't have been the religious seperation of Pakistan and India, who knows). Africa would have followed in the 60s and 70s.

I don't think there would have been a WW2 if no Hitler. Stalin's expansionism post WW2 (and indeed in the run up to, Finland, the Baltic States, Poland) was more about creating a buffer zone between the Russian homeland and the expansionist German state, whilst also gaining strategic resources for the showdown he knew was coming. If no Hitler, possibly a democratic Germany would find common cause with Poland and France and Czechoslovakia and Austria and the growth of a new Mittle-European EU 10-15 years earlier. The British would stay out, until the last vestiges of Empire fell away.

Similarly, no Nazi Germany, i'd say the Republicans would have won the civil war in Spain, and they too could become part of an EU.

I personally believe Stalin was a Russian chauvinist (despite being Georgian) and had no real plans to export revolution (this is born out by the actions of the Comnintern in the 20s and early 30s) until the rise of Hitler. He would have been content to plot his five year plans and his "socialism in one country", maybe the odd minor landgrab, killed a few more million then died or been replaced in the 50s (to be honest, without WW2, again, it's hard to see how the Stalinist state could have survived, he'd already turned large portions of the population against him with the Famine and the Terror, there'd be no extraneous Nazi threat, so his domestic policies would have been under sharper scrutiny, and then no invasion to unify the USSR. If it did survive, perhaps it would have as a more benign bureacratic state, in the model that Gorbachev envisioned).

These years of peace and prosperity in Middle Europe, with maybe a far eastern war between Japan on the one hand and China, France, America and the UK on the other, would have left Europe far more dominant politically than it is now, and there would be several powerblocs, not the Cold War "us or them", or the post cold-war "America and everyone else"

All my opinion, possibly with little but gut feeling, instinct and historical knowledge to back it up. Interesting though ;)

The US probably would have sent troops to crush the Spanish anarchist revolution,
Even though it was not "Soviet Union trying to take over the world".

The US ruling class hates a 'good example' of people running things on their own. It doesn't fit into their work of fiction that people need to be told what to do.
Oh, plus they fear actually having to get a job.
They like slaves. Wage slaves.

Actually at the time, even in an alternate universe, the US would still be isolationist, concerned only with the Americas. I highly doubt that the US would intervene in a Spainish Civil War. At the time, the US viewed events over there as Europe's problem. Its only after WW2 that the US shakes off isolationism and begins to project power outside its own hemisphere. And that is primarily due to the rising threat of the Soviet Union.

It seems that you have a lot of anger and hatred towards the US.

Actually at the time, even in an alternate universe, the US would still be isolationist, concerned only with the Americas. I highly doubt that the US would intervene in a Spainish Civil War. At the time, the US viewed events over there as Europe's problem. Its only after WW2 that the US shakes off isolationism and begins to project power outside its own hemisphere. And that is primarily due to the rising threat of the Soviet Union.

But I wonder if Communism was an exception. Remember that the United States DID intervene, along with other Western Powers, against the Commies in the Russian Civil War. Of course, a good bit of that was keeping the second front against Germany alive, but I believe it went on past World War I. Many people (like Charles Lindbergh) were a'okay with fascism because of the promise it held to fight against Communism, that terrible, godless evil.

A vital point, WW2 marked the point of imperial overstretch for the British Empire, and they were left with a choice, cling to the past or try and re-forge the home country.

Without the Holocaust, I think we'd have a Palestine instead of an Israel. Perhaps a group of Zionists pushing for their promised Jewish state, countered with Anti-Semitic dismissal.

I personally believe Stalin was a Russian chauvinist...

I didn't copy all of this paragraph, but I find myself agreeing with you entirely.

These years of peace and prosperity in Middle Europe, with maybe a far eastern war between Japan on the one hand and China, France, America and the UK on the other, would have left Europe far more dominant politically than it is now, and there would be several powerblocs, not the Cold War "us or them", or the post cold-war "America and everyone else"

For all of America's isolationism, I have heard that we had a vested interest in China and the East because of our new colonies in that area (e.g. Philippines). I think Japan would have still fought its war with China, and the United States would have still placed an embargo on them. I'm also envisioning an invasion of the Dutch East Indies for resources, with appeasement folk in England and France allowing it (though I may be way off here). Would Japan have made a pre-emptive strike on Pearl Harbor and fought a war between them, China(s), and the U.S.? If not, would the U.S. have taken more than diplomatic and economic efforts to curb Japanese expansionism? I can't decide in my own little mind.

I do think a Japan war without Russia's eventual entry would have ensured the end of Maoist China, however. The U.S. was doing all it could to make sure Chiang came out on top.

Well, I guess that if Hitler had been killed, Germany would have somehow managed to get rid of the economic crisis. Since it was the first economic/industrial/scientific power, I guess that the power it'd have sided with would have won ? Hence the point is to know what system they would have gone for ? Capitalist ? Communist ? Bit of both (like France)?

Despite the initial direction I pushed this thread, I think that some militist would have come to power if Hitler had not been around. The fact that Hitler was able to rally so much support to redress the wrongs and humiliation that Germany endured... the fact that Italy (and, perhaps, Spain) still offers models of fascist-like governments in this alternative dimension is significant in my opinion.

Imagine an inter-war Germany where a young militant nationalist comes to power through the constitutional flaw or a beer hall putsch. Someone who might have sought alliance with Austria instead of Anschluss, who might have abided by a pact with Russia (because who wants an extra front?), but who also might have been too 'sensible' to do things like pressing for the Sudetenland at Munich. A hale and hearty fascist.

Or, maybe even, a Germany ruled by someone like Ludwig Beck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Beck). A militant Germany that still remained wary of England and France; perhaps the Soviet Union would be the first and only target of a purely ideological war.

Without Hitler, I doubt Germany would have puttled itself out of the depression at all. Stalin occupies Germany without protest and is welcomed as a savior. The League of Nations tells Stalin he was a bad boy and make him promise never to do that again.

Without Hitler, I doubt Germany would have puttled itself out of the depression at all. Stalin occupies Germany without protest and is welcomed as a savior. The League of Nations tells Stalin he was a bad boy and make him promise never to do that again.

I know there was a Communist group in Germany. What I don't know is how pervasive or powerful it was.