Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

[stevep]

Outright breaking up Germany is probably unlikely, but Germany is likely to get very thoroughly de-Nazified in this TL. Mussolini I would presume would ally with the Anglo-French after the war in order to combat the Soviet/Communist threat. German-Polish relations are likely to be tense for a while if Germany is still likely to lose a lot of territory to Poland, albeit not quite as much as in real life. Germany's best odds here would be to launch an anti-Nazi coup sufficiently early before the Anglo-French are hungry for revenge. Then they could perhaps be allowed to keep Germany's January 1939 borders.

The US will continue to be economically active in Europe but will not make any binding military commitments there. But we could see a Pan-European defense alliance and economic union eventually emerge. The Holocaust would, of course, be much smaller in this scenario if it is to occur at all since the Nazis will never have as many Jews under their rule as they had in real life. Soviet and Hungarian Jews are going to remain unscathed, after all. I wonder what effects this will have on Zionism and the creation of Israel.

I wonder if the Soviet Union will survive up to the present-day in this TL since it won't have the extremely massive WWII casualties from real life and what if one or more of these millions of casualties (born sometime between 1910 and 1927) would have been a Soviet version of Deng Xiaoping who could have outmaneuvered Mikhail Gorbachev and rose to power in the Soviet Union? We'll just never know, right?

Decolonization could be both longer and messier in this TL due to the survival of Anglo-French military power, of course. The Anglo-French will decolonize on their own terms here rather than on US-Soviet terms like in real life. In real life, what helped decolonization movements was that both superpowers were anti-colonialist. This world, however, won't actually have any superpowers, only a whole bunch of Great Powers.

Well OTL Soviet Union loss huge numbers of people in WWII but they did gain:
a) A lot more territory and people.
b) Possibly more importantly the sheer brutality and murderous character of the Nazi regime gave communism renewed legality as some of the propaganda about how hostile the rest of the world was to Russia had been shown to be reasonably accurate.

Lacking this latter then possibly when Stalin dies you could see a scramble for power triggering widespread unrest as people seek to get the hell away from the horrors of the years since 1918. Or possibly even without WWII he descends further into paranoia and excess and triggers some move to remove him. Possibly difficult as he had a personality cult that had been about longer than Hitler's and you know how long the bulk of the Germans fought for him when things were clearly hopeless.

 

[WolfBear]

Well OTL Soviet Union loss huge numbers of people in WWII but they did gain:
a) A lot more territory and people.
b) Possibly more importantly the sheer brutality and murderous character of the Nazi regime gave communism renewed legality as some of the propaganda about how hostile the rest of the world was to Russia had been shown to be reasonably accurate.

Lacking this latter then possibly when Stalin dies you could see a scramble for power triggering widespread unrest as people seek to get the hell away from the horrors of the years since 1918. Or possibly even without WWII he descends further into paranoia and excess and triggers some move to remove him. Possibly difficult as he had a personality cult that had been about longer than Hitler's and you know how long the bulk of the Germans fought for him when things were clearly hopeless.

Attempting to remove Stalin would likely result in one getting a bullet to one's head in some corridor. Not happening. Stalin instilled much more fear in his military men than Hitler did, at least until July 1944.

As for the Soviet Union's extra people, many of them, such as Ukrainian nationalists and Balts, were unreliable and not supporters of the existing Soviet system. But the people whom the Soviet Union lost in World War II were probably more likely to be supporters of the existing Soviet system.

 

[stevep]

Attempting to remove Stalin would likely result in one getting a bullet to one's head in some corridor. Not happening. Stalin instilled much more fear in his military men than Hitler did, at least until July 1944.

Likely but not certainly. Plus Stalin wasn't immortal.

The thing is that the Soviet empire collapsed when enough people were no longer willing to let it continue. The 'Great Patriotic War' gave considerable validity to the system for a generation or so.

As for the Soviet Union's extra people, many of them, such as Ukrainian nationalists and Balts, were unreliable and not supporters of the existing Soviet system. But the people whom the Soviet Union lost in World War II were probably more likely to be supporters of the existing Soviet system.

I was thinking more of Poland, E Germany, Romania etc. True many of them were even more unreliable but a fair number weren't and it added a lot of people and resources.

 

[WolfBear]

Likely but not certainly. Plus Stalin wasn't immortal.

The thing is that the Soviet empire collapsed when enough people were no longer willing to let it continue. The 'Great Patriotic War' gave considerable validity to the system for a generation or so.



I was thinking more of Poland, E Germany, Romania etc. True many of them were even more unreliable but a fair number weren't and it added a lot of people and resources.

You kill Stalin, and his successor could immediately execute you!

It also collapsed when it significantly liberalized and people could thus actually speak out against it. This won't necessarily happen in this TL, at least not as early as the 1950s.

Well, Yeah, but the USSR also had to keep its own troops in there (other than in Romania, which was more independent-minded but still in the Warsaw Pact) in order to having its satellite regimes in these countries collapse. Once the troops were withdrawn, or about to be withdrawn, all of these regimes collapsed.

 

[stevep]

You kill Stalin, and his successor could immediately execute you!

Unless your the successor, or simply have lost enough that you don't care, or misjudge the situation. Plenty of options.

It also collapsed when it significantly liberalized and people could thus actually speak out against it. This won't necessarily happen in this TL, at least not as early as the 1950s.

It actually liberalized slightly in the 1950's then swung back into autocratic bureaucracy after Khrushchev's fall. There was a desire to avoid another single ruler like Stalin, for their own survival chances but this made things even more arthritic. That and the dying memories of the war plus the mess that was Afghanistan prompted the problems that made the leadership gamble on Gorbachev and he made the choices that allowed people to express opinions more. In the proposed alternative here things are more repressive but people are simply more desperate.

Well, Yeah, but the USSR also had to keep its own troops in there (other than in Romania, which was more independent-minded but still in the Warsaw Pact) in order to having its satellite regimes in these countries collapse. Once the troops were withdrawn, or about to be withdrawn, all of these regimes collapsed.

Yes but they were able to have those militaries, populations, industries and other resources during that period.

 

[Zyobot]

'Friendly Russo-American Relations Throughout The 20th Century'.

Can't imagine the USSR was terribly good for that, so maybe nixing it is a good start?

 

[WolfBear]

'Friendly Russo-American Relations Throughout The 20th Century'.

Can't imagine the USSR was terribly good for that, so maybe nixing it is a good start?

Having the US enter World War I in 1915 instead of in 1917 might be a good start in regards to this. This could perhaps allow the US to have a huge army in Europe a year earlier, which could prevent Russia's second (Bolshevik) revolution. Of course, this wouldn't necessarily mean that Russia will permanently remain a democracy: It could eventually go Fascist and/or right-wing authoritarian like much of its neighborhood did by 1938 in real life, but this in itself would not necessarily be incompatible with good relations with the US. AFAIK, Mussolini was on fairly good terms with the US until he allied himself with Hitler. So, there's no reason that even a Fascist Russia won't be able to do the same, assuming that it won't do anything crazy in either its domestic policy or its foreign policy, of course.

 

[Doomsought]

Can't imagine the USSR was terribly good for that, so maybe nixing it is a good start?

The thing about the "Communist Revolution" was that it was actually a dozen or so different rebellions happening at the same time, the communists were just professional cat herders that were able to sweep up all of the revolutions that actually overthrew the Tsars. What if this Gambit failed? What if the revolutionaries couldn't all be united, fought each-other for a little bit and then divider Russia between them. This might take a few alterations in the lead up, but the result is Russia getting Balkanized.

 

[WolfBear]

The thing about the "Communist Revolution" was that it was actually a dozen or so different rebellions happening at the same time, the communists were just professional cat herders that were able to sweep up all of the revolutions that actually overthrew the Tsars. What if this Gambit failed? What if the revolutionaries couldn't all be united, fought each-other for a little bit and then divider Russia between them. This might take a few alterations in the lead up, but the result is Russia getting Balkanized.

If the Nazis still come to power in Germany in such a scenario, then Russia will become easy mincemeat for them after the Fall of France. European Jewry would fare a bit better since they would be deported en masse to Madagascar or Siberia or Central Asia or wherever rather than outright murdered, but seeing Eastern Slavs permanently lose their ancestral European homeland and having tens of millions of them be deported east of the Urals would certainly be a huge tragedy--with the remainder of them becoming forced helot-peasants under Nazi rule becoming another huge tragedy!

 

[WolfBear]

'AHC: Have Germany eventually become a republic while still keeping Alsace-Lorraine. And no Nazis allowed.'

 

[Bassoe]

'Friendly Russo-American Relations Throughout The 20th Century'.

Can't imagine the USSR was terribly good for that, so maybe nixing it is a good start?

Instead of risking pointless specieswide suicide in cold war and the eventual war on terror against jihadists previously propped up as proxy armies, the US and USSR team up immediately after WW2 to carve out humanity's first worldwide empire.

What if idealism went extinct in the mid Twentieth Century?

FDR at Yalta: "Let's cut the crap, Joe. The USA and the USSR are the top
dogs and we can keep it that way. If we co-operate and keep on
co-operating, we will own nearly everything and can seize whatever else
we want."

CHURCHILL: "I say, Mr. President . . ."

::FDR takes out a pistol and fires it, clipping off a piece of
Churchill's left ear.::

FDR: "Shut up, fat boy. You aren't American or Soviet, so I don't care
what you say."

STALIN: "What can the Soviet Union do in Europe?"

FDR: "Anything you want to, so long as the US gets a piece of the
action."

STALIN: "You have a very appealing suggestion, Mr. President . . . .."

In a world written by Jerry Pournelle. Mario Puzo's Corleone family
would be "heads in the clouds" idealists.

Maybe the Americans and Russians do what the Spanish and the Portugese did in the 15th Century. Making an exception the democracies of Western Europe, the Americans get everything to the west and the Russians get everything to the east. Both countries agree that they will not interfere with the other country's sphere of influence.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

'AHC: Have Germany eventually become a republic while still keeping Alsace-Lorraine. And no Nazis allowed.'

If that's after WW1, then avoiding the degeneracy of the Weimar Republic is required.

 

[Bassoe]

If that's after WW1, then avoiding the degeneracy of the Weimar Republic is required.

Also the economic collapse. And the threat of communist revolution while the Weimar citizens got a sneak peak at how that'd play out in Russia and decided they'd do anything to avoid it happening to them.

 

[stevep]

Instead of risking pointless specieswide suicide in cold war and the eventual war on terror against jihadists previously propped up as proxy armies, the US and USSR team up immediately after WW2 to carve out humanity's first worldwide empire.

Isn't that basically the argument in the CoDominium stories by Jerry Pournelle, & Larry Niven? Although I think they only briefly touch on it as backgrounds for later novels if I remember correctly.

Of course they then have to hold down pretty much the entire world, which isn't going to be easy unless their going to start using Nazi type levels of mass slaughter. It would mean the end of democracy in the US and its suppression around the world, hopefully only until the empire collapses.

 

[stevep]

The thing about the "Communist Revolution" was that it was actually a dozen or so different rebellions happening at the same time, the communists were just professional cat herders that were able to sweep up all of the revolutions that actually overthrew the Tsars. What if this Gambit failed? What if the revolutionaries couldn't all be united, fought each-other for a little bit and then divider Russia between them. This might take a few alterations in the lead up, but the result is Russia getting Balkanized.

The problem is that, for the Russian heartland at least there is a strong sense of national and cultural identity and a number of those groups, not just the Bolsheviks are so bloody disruptive that its likely, before some threat like the Nazis arise, there will be a successful reunification of a core Russia. Plus rather than the chaos of multiple warring states this would be something that most of the rest of the world would support.

 

[WolfBear]

The problem is that, for the Russian heartland at least there is a strong sense of national and cultural identity and a number of those groups, not just the Bolsheviks are so bloody disruptive that its likely, before some threat like the Nazis arise, there will be a successful reunification of a core Russia. Plus rather than the chaos of multiple warring states this would be something that most of the rest of the world would support.

China was divided for several decades in the early 20th century in real life, though, and one would think that the Han Chinese likewise had a sufficiently strong national identity.

If that's after WW1, then avoiding the degeneracy of the Weimar Republic is required.

Also the economic collapse. And the threat of communist revolution while the Weimar citizens got a sneak peak at how that'd play out in Russia and decided they'd do anything to avoid it happening to them.

So, have Germany win WWI and yet still somehow become a republic afterwards?

 

[WolfBear]

'AHC: Have Germany win WWI in the West (similar to 1940 in WWII in our TL) while subsequently having Germany lose WWI in the East (like in 1941-1945 in WWII in our TL)'

 

[Atarlost]

If the Nazis still come to power in Germany in such a scenario, then Russia will become easy mincemeat for them after the Fall of France. European Jewry would fare a bit better since they would be deported en masse to Madagascar or Siberia or Central Asia or wherever rather than outright murdered, but seeing Eastern Slavs permanently lose their ancestral European homeland and having tens of millions of them be deported east of the Urals would certainly be a huge tragedy--with the remainder of them becoming forced helot-peasants under Nazi rule becoming another huge tragedy!

The thing is, a balkanized Russia doesn't mean bad relations with the US. The surviving governments in exile would tend to be very cozy with the US and there was basically no chance of a thousand year Reich or even a thousand month Reich. They might have made it to a thousand week Reich, but while Hitler's designated successor wasn't listening to Hitler's private doctor's atrocious medical advice he was obese and approaching the heart disease danger zone. And after Goering passes all the party's senior statesmen are gone and there's no clear successor and it's civil war o'clock. At this point the Russias regain their independence if they hadn't successfully rebelled already and while they probably don't want the governments in exile back if it's been decades, they do want to be friendly with any of the world's remaining great powers that don't want to conquer them, most prominent of which is probably the US.

Instead of risking pointless specieswide suicide in cold war and the eventual war on terror against jihadists previously propped up as proxy armies, the US and USSR team up immediately after WW2 to carve out humanity's first worldwide empire.

This requires US democracy to be a complete sham by the time Roosevelt dies because there are two parties and "free Europe" is going to be really popular with a lot of voting blocks. Roosevelt might get a fourth term off the back of the Great Depression if he survives, but after that he's going to start looking increasingly like a dictator if he keeps running and if the fix is in he might not get the fourth term because his coalition is going to start shedding the people with family in Europe, people with ties to Asia, people with a Pope in Europe, the Orthodox, the Zionists, the evangelical protestants sympathetic to the Zionists, and probably some others. Long term peace with Communism is not possible so long as the US remains democratic and capitalist and long term peace with Bolshevism is not possible even if the US somehow threads the blind needle and becomes Communist while remaining democratic.

'AHC: Have Germany eventually become a republic while still keeping Alsace-Lorraine. And no Nazis allowed.'

Getting from empire to republic is actually pretty easy. European monarchies have been tending towards real power slipping into the hands of parliaments for most of the 20th century at least so we can rely on that trend and the eventuality of a Kaiser wanting to spite his heir enough to abdicate in favor of the elected government or simply not having an heir due to reproductive issues. Given enough time it can be cast as inevitable. So we only need to prevent Germany from losing a war with France.

Lots of options for this I suspect.

• The disorder of the Paris Commune spreads and France collapses into civil war after the Franco-Prussian War. This reinforces Monarchy, but this is early enough that it hasn't started its decline. It can stand a few decades of delay since without a time limit we've got until the present.
• Gavrillo Princip chooses a different sandwich shop and when the Balkans explode they do so in such a way that Russia is the clear aggressor. The Triple Alliance would probably win a war if Italy kept its alliance and the US did not intervene in favor of the nations supporting the Russian aggressors. Franz Ferdinand was planning some measures that would have contributed to the liberalization trend so this is probably the clearest path.
• Then there are all the myriad answers I'm sure you've seen before about how Germany could win WWI. Those are almost all going to satisfy this challenge.

'AHC: Have Germany win WWI in the West (similar to 1940 in WWII in our TL) while subsequently having Germany lose WWI in the East (like in 1941-1945 in WWII in our TL)'

That one might be more of an ASB. At the start of the war, guns have advanced enough to nullify horse cavalry, but internal combustion engines haven't advanced enough to replace horse cavalry. Unless the French fold like a wet newspaper due to internal issues, a sweeping German victory as seen in the Franco-Prussian War or WWII seems impossible. And Russia lacks the industry at this time to win if France collapses. General Winter might drive the Germans back, but the Russians can't follow through.

 

[stevep]

China was divided for several decades in the early 20th century in real life, though, and one would think that the Han Chinese likewise had a sufficiently strong national identity.

True but without the Japanese invasions it was heading that way by the mid-30's and similarly with Russia I would expect.

So, have Germany win WWI and yet still somehow become a republic afterwards?

Very difficult unless you have the military and aristocracy seeking to maintain their political dominance, ignoring the pressure for economic and social reform and coupled with the costs of a large continental empire it prompts some form of revolution and the expulsion of the imperial family. Depending on how things go and especially if your avoided the Bolsheviks gaining power in the east there's even a decent chance that the state could end up reasonably democratic rather than autocratic.

 

[Zyobot]

'Nazi Version of Pol Pot'.

Just when you thought Hitler was the worst of the worst, as it was... 😮