Alternate Cold War: Communist America Vs. Capitalist Britain?

[Zyobot]

IOTL, the Cold War was a global gridlock between the democratic, civil liberties-supportive United States and the authoritarian, utopia-fixated Soviet Union. Through espionage, propaganda and political power plays aplenty, they sought to determine which way of life the world would ultimately adopt: capitalism or communism.

If we were to keep these two ideologies but swap which nations champion which ones, is it possible to get something similar between a revolution-founded, zealously socialistic People's States of America and an imperialistic, commerce-loving United Kingdom that manages to retain its empire and attain superpower status?

Thank you in advance,

Zyobot

[lordroel]

Apr 26, 2019 23:30:36 GMT Zyobot said:

IOTL, the Cold War was a global gridlock between the democratic, civil liberties-supportive United States and the authoritarian, utopia-fixated Soviet Union. Through espionage, propaganda and political power plays aplenty, they sought to determine which way of life the world would ultimately adopt: capitalism or communism.

If we were to keep these two ideologies but swap which nations champion which ones, is it possible to get something similar between a revolution-founded, zealously socialistic People's States of America and an imperialistic, commerce-loving United Kingdom that manages to retain its empire and attain superpower status?

Thank you in advance,

Zyobot

I can See South America being partly the Warsaw Pact and partly being led by a United Kingdom dominated alliance.

[stevep]

Apr 26, 2019 23:30:36 GMT Zyobot said:

IOTL, the Cold War was a global gridlock between the democratic, civil liberties-supportive United States and the authoritarian, utopia-fixated Soviet Union. Through espionage, propaganda and political power plays aplenty, they sought to determine which way of life the world would ultimately adopt: capitalism or communism.

If we were to keep these two ideologies but swap which nations champion which ones, is it possible to get something similar between a revolution-founded, zealously socialistic People's States of America and an imperialistic, commerce-loving United Kingdom that manages to retain its empire and attain superpower status?

Thank you in advance,

Zyobot

  One problem would be the status of Canada and other British possessions in the Caribbean area especially as if you have the US as OTL in terms of size and population.  Even if ravaged for a while by civil war and then crippled by a communist dictatorship the PSA is still going to pose a very large threat to Canada and other allies/possessions in the region.  Coupled with this is the problem that Britain itself will always have to keep at least one eye on what's happening in Europe.  Your likely to get a diaspora from the old US with many going to Canada and the UK which could well help but unless this is huge I can't see it making a massive difference and there are limits to what both Canada for climatic reasons and Britain in terms of size can take.

  Which is another issue.  If your talking about something from say 1950 onwards its very difficult to see Europe not being a rival centre of power to both the UK and the PSA.  Either Russia or Germany at the very least are likely to be at least a great power and probably other powers.  Which will be a serious problem for Britain and hence will undermine any support it gives Canada.  Whatever is happening in Europe will have a major impact on the world.

  I think it would definitely need Britain to get nukes 1st and maintain a much larger deterrent, especially with units based in Canada and parts of the Caribbean as a deterrent. 

  The other issue that that I can't see Britain holding onto much of its empire as an empire.  Ideally a different and more thought out decolonisation could leave say India and other regions as additional dominions, friendly with and allied to Britain in a mutual defence pact but that's the closest you could see and how long Dehli would be willing to play 2nd fiddle to Britain could be an issue here.  Also the question of racism and the status of the white minority settlers in much of Africa would be a big problem.

[Zyobot]

Besides America and the British Commonwealth, I wonder what the fate of other nations ITTL would be. For instance, would Russia stay imperial and align with the English, or fall to socialist forces in a revolution that Washington might have a role in causing?

What about Asia, which was an indirect battleground between OTL's two superpowers? Could China still end up communist, or Japan potential share in such a fate? I've a feeling that Southeast Asia would follow a similar path compared to real life, in large part to stick it to the "imperialist West" that has oppressed and exploited its people for so long.

[lordroel]

Apr 27, 2019 22:56:46 GMT Zyobot said:

Besides America and the British Commonwealth, I wonder what the fate of other nations ITTL would be. For instance, would Russia stay imperial and align with the English, or fall to socialist forces in a revolution that Washington might have a role in causing?

What about Asia, which was an indirect battleground between OTL's two superpowers? Could China still end up communist, or Japan potential share in such a fate? I've a feeling that Southeast Asia would follow a similar path compared to real life, in large part to stick it to the "imperialist West" that has oppressed and exploited its people for so long.

Well if Russia became a true democracy before the start of the Great War i could see it stay a monarchy and also a Pro-British country.

[stevep]

Apr 28, 2019 8:51:22 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 27, 2019 22:56:46 GMT Zyobot said:

Besides America and the British Commonwealth, I wonder what the fate of other nations ITTL would be. For instance, would Russia stay imperial and align with the English, or fall to socialist forces in a revolution that Washington might have a role in causing?

What about Asia, which was an indirect battleground between OTL's two superpowers? Could China still end up communist, or Japan potential share in such a fate? I've a feeling that Southeast Asia would follow a similar path compared to real life, in large part to stick it to the "imperialist West" that has oppressed and exploited its people for so long.

Well if Russia became a true democracy before the start of the Great War i could see it stay a monarchy and also a Pro-British country.

  The best chance for a democratic Russia this early might be if the Provisional Government survived, say WWI ending before Lenin could destroy it and after a period of instability maturing into a stable democracy.  However a strong industrially developed Russia is almost certain to be a major player in its own right and following its own path.  Plus with historical and geographical clashes, especially if say a united India is still friendly to Britain Russia is likely to be more hostile, albeit possibly not by much, to Britain than to the suggested PSA.

  Possibly if say we had Russia [in whatever form] and the PSA on one side and Britain, and more liberal Japan and Germany on the other that might lead to a situation which is stable enough for a prolonged cold war stalemate, although this is going some way away from the aims of the OP.

[lukedalton]

let's try:

- Tsar Nicholas decide to follow the advice of everyone and abdicate in favor of his brother in late 1916; the change of leadership (and the reform that Michael is forced to agree)stabilize a little the political situation and improve the military performances avoiding in this manner the February Revulution
- Germany decide to not go for the unrestricted submarine warfare and don't even think about the Zimmerman telegram for fear to bring the USA in the war as they have already problem in this manner
- The ITTL Kerensky offensive (plus Romanian offensive tied to it) are a little more succesfull and more importantly the Russian Army hold (barely) the line
- Caporetto is butteflyed away and in late 1917 the Anglo-French offensive brought a general retreat of the German Army
- Last ditch CP offensive as they try to knock out Italy and Russia while acting defensively against the French...failure of the offensive and end of the war by May 1918 with a Entente victory
- Treaty of Versailles, Wilson partecipate as observer, while succesfull in creating his League of Nations and sponsor a naval treaty for limit the sizes of the great power navyes, his imput on the terms of the treaty are ignored.

- No red scare in the USA, the socialist grown do a decent size and when the great depression hit they become the first party, this event (after years of low level political violence) start the ITTL equivalent of the 'Business Plot' that fail miserably and ignite a civil war won by hardline socialist
- The British occupy some border zone with the USA plus Alaska as a security measure
- Japan enstablish a Kingdom of Haway under their 'protection'
- Panama is reoccupied by Colombia and the canal zone become an international mandate under the Aegis of the LoN

- worldwide troubles due to the call for world revolution; the British (and allies) don't recognize the new american goverment and stay behind the goverment-in-exile in Alaska lead by Hoover (J.E)
- Mexican revoultion and union between the 'brother socialist republic of America)

[stevep]

May 16, 2019 8:39:55 GMT lukedalton said:

let's try:

- Tsar Nicholas decide to follow the advice of everyone and abdicate in favor of his brother in late 1916; the change of leadership (and the reform that Michael is forced to agree)stabilize a little the political situation and improve the military performances avoiding in this manner the February Revulution
- Germany decide to not go for the unrestricted submarine warfare and don't even think about the Zimmerman telegram for fear to bring the USA in the war as they have already problem in this manner
- The ITTL Kerensky offensive (plus Romanian offensive tied to it) are a little more succesfull and more importantly the Russian Army hold (barely) the line
- Caporetto is butteflyed away and in late 1917 the Anglo-French offensive brought a general retreat of the German Army
- Last ditch CP offensive as they try to knock out Italy and Russia while acting defensively against the French...failure of the offensive and end of the war by May 1918 with a Entente victory
- Treaty of Versailles, Wilson partecipate as observer, while succesfull in creating his League of Nations and sponsor a naval treaty for limit the sizes of the great power navyes, his imput on the terms of the treaty are ignored.

- No red scare in the USA, the socialist grown do a decent size and when the great depression hit they become the first party, this event (after years of low level political violence) start the ITTL equivalent of the 'Business Plot' that fail miserably and ignite a civil war won by hardline socialist
- The British occupy some border zone with the USA plus Alaska as a security measure
- Japan enstablish a Kingdom of Haway under their 'protection'
- Panama is reoccupied by Colombia and the canal zone become an international mandate under the Aegis of the LoN

- worldwide troubles due to the call for world revolution; the British (and allies) don't recognize the new american goverment and stay behind the goverment-in-exile in Alaska lead by Hoover (J.E)
- Mexican revoultion and union between the 'brother socialist republic of America)

  Luke

  That could work and concern about the threat from the US - or whatever its called now - would help tie Canada at least and possibly the rest of the dominions to closer co-operation with Britain for mutual defence.  Also Canada would probably be strengthened by a flood of refugeese from the US, who would boost the population and bring some useful skills and knowledge.  By hard line socialist do you mean outright communist/bolshevik?  That would probably be better in terms of limiting US strength and making it a political pariah.

  I would suggest that while Wilson probably gets a LoN off the ground there's no naval treaty.  This hurt Britain more than the US, especially as its planned designs, with a lot of wartime experience and post-war testing are generally considered markedly superior.  Also if any such negotiations collapse with bad feelings your probably going to have the Anglo-Japanese alliance survive.  This not only makes the British allies stronger - although likely to be some tension between Japan and Russia - but would improve the chances of Japan staying liberal rather than turning fascist.

  Such a moderate reformist Russia, fully involved in the treaty ending WWI and diplomacy post-war would make for a more balanced peace as there is little/no chance of a revanchist Germany managing to challenge the victorious allies or even attempting.  Plus with the political position more secure and a shorter and less bloody war France is less likely to drive for an hard peace to limit German power so you could well see a somewhat more moderate peace.  Still going to be a demand for reparations, given what Germany did during the war, especially for Belgium but could be lower and a more clearly defeated Germany might accept it has to make an attempt to pay them this time.  Overall you probably have little no danger of a WWII occurring, at least in Europe and probably not in the Far East either.

  Also such a peace, with markedly lower war debts to the US and with Russia still part of the wider world economy then the depression in the US might well not be as damaging around the world. 

  Wouldn't suggest that JE Hoover would make a good leader of a government in exile, even if only restricted to Alaska.

  Steve

[lukedalton]

May 16, 2019 11:52:39 GMT stevep said:

May 16, 2019 8:39:55 GMT lukedalton said:

let's try:

- Tsar Nicholas decide to follow the advice of everyone and abdicate in favor of his brother in late 1916; the change of leadership (and the reform that Michael is forced to agree)stabilize a little the political situation and improve the military performances avoiding in this manner the February Revulution
- Germany decide to not go for the unrestricted submarine warfare and don't even think about the Zimmerman telegram for fear to bring the USA in the war as they have already problem in this manner
- The ITTL Kerensky offensive (plus Romanian offensive tied to it) are a little more succesfull and more importantly the Russian Army hold (barely) the line
- Caporetto is butteflyed away and in late 1917 the Anglo-French offensive brought a general retreat of the German Army
- Last ditch CP offensive as they try to knock out Italy and Russia while acting defensively against the French...failure of the offensive and end of the war by May 1918 with a Entente victory
- Treaty of Versailles, Wilson partecipate as observer, while succesfull in creating his League of Nations and sponsor a naval treaty for limit the sizes of the great power navyes, his imput on the terms of the treaty are ignored.

- No red scare in the USA, the socialist grown do a decent size and when the great depression hit they become the first party, this event (after years of low level political violence) start the ITTL equivalent of the 'Business Plot' that fail miserably and ignite a civil war won by hardline socialist
- The British occupy some border zone with the USA plus Alaska as a security measure
- Japan enstablish a Kingdom of Haway under their 'protection'
- Panama is reoccupied by Colombia and the canal zone become an international mandate under the Aegis of the LoN

- worldwide troubles due to the call for world revolution; the British (and allies) don't recognize the new american goverment and stay behind the goverment-in-exile in Alaska lead by Hoover (J.E)
- Mexican revoultion and union between the 'brother socialist republic of America)

  Luke

  That could work and concern about the threat from the US - or whatever its called now - would help tie Canada at least and possibly the rest of the dominions to closer co-operation with Britain for mutual defence.  Also Canada would probably be strengthened by a flood of refugeese from the US, who would boost the population and bring some useful skills and knowledge.  By hard line socialist do you mean outright communist/bolshevik?  That would probably be better in terms of limiting US strength and making it a political pariah.

  I would suggest that while Wilson probably gets a LoN off the ground there's no naval treaty.  This hurt Britain more than the US, especially as its planned designs, with a lot of wartime experience and post-war testing are generally considered markedly superior.  Also if any such negotiations collapse with bad feelings your probably going to have the Anglo-Japanese alliance survive.  This not only makes the British allies stronger - although likely to be some tension between Japan and Russia - but would improve the chances of Japan staying liberal rather than turning fascist.

  Such a moderate reformist Russia, fully involved in the treaty ending WWI and diplomacy post-war would make for a more balanced peace as there is little/no chance of a revanchist Germany managing to challenge the victorious allies or even attempting.  Plus with the political position more secure and a shorter and less bloody war France is less likely to drive for an hard peace to limit German power so you could well see a somewhat more moderate peace.  Still going to be a demand for reparations, given what Germany did during the war, especially for Belgium but could be lower and a more clearly defeated Germany might accept it has to make an attempt to pay them this time.  Overall you probably have little no danger of a WWII occurring, at least in Europe and probably not in the Far East either.

  Also such a peace, with markedly lower war debts to the US and with Russia still part of the wider world economy then the depression in the US might well not be as damaging around the world. 

  Wouldn't suggest that JE Hoover would make a good leader of a government in exile, even if only restricted to Alaska.

  Steve

Well i give WW the naval treaty, because everyone in the end wanted it...due to simple budgetary reason, the war was very expensive and all the great powers desired cut military expediture and the OTL WNT give everyone the possiblity,  so somekind of naval treaty will happen as, except the USA (and i don't know if by remaining neutral they expand the Navy), nobody else can afford it.
It will probably different, maybe more favorable to the British and/or the Anglo-japanese alliance will remain (difficult as Canada want to remain on USA good side), but a treaty will happen.

The problem with Russia is that while has managed to avoid revolution during the war, it's still not safe; the economy is in shambles, nothing obtained at Versailles will be enough (and the British will surely try to moderate her demand to keep Germany as a possible counterweight) and the various nationalities will demand much more freedom while the Polish and the Finnish independence. Basically she will suffer a big period of political violence and economic troubles, so a later red/black revolution can be still on schedule.

[stevep]

May 16, 2019 19:19:15 GMT lukedalton said:

May 16, 2019 11:52:39 GMT stevep said:

  Luke

  That could work and concern about the threat from the US - or whatever its called now - would help tie Canada at least and possibly the rest of the dominions to closer co-operation with Britain for mutual defence.  Also Canada would probably be strengthened by a flood of refugeese from the US, who would boost the population and bring some useful skills and knowledge.  By hard line socialist do you mean outright communist/bolshevik?  That would probably be better in terms of limiting US strength and making it a political pariah.

  I would suggest that while Wilson probably gets a LoN off the ground there's no naval treaty.  This hurt Britain more than the US, especially as its planned designs, with a lot of wartime experience and post-war testing are generally considered markedly superior.  Also if any such negotiations collapse with bad feelings your probably going to have the Anglo-Japanese alliance survive.  This not only makes the British allies stronger - although likely to be some tension between Japan and Russia - but would improve the chances of Japan staying liberal rather than turning fascist.

  Such a moderate reformist Russia, fully involved in the treaty ending WWI and diplomacy post-war would make for a more balanced peace as there is little/no chance of a revanchist Germany managing to challenge the victorious allies or even attempting.  Plus with the political position more secure and a shorter and less bloody war France is less likely to drive for an hard peace to limit German power so you could well see a somewhat more moderate peace.  Still going to be a demand for reparations, given what Germany did during the war, especially for Belgium but could be lower and a more clearly defeated Germany might accept it has to make an attempt to pay them this time.  Overall you probably have little no danger of a WWII occurring, at least in Europe and probably not in the Far East either.

  Also such a peace, with markedly lower war debts to the US and with Russia still part of the wider world economy then the depression in the US might well not be as damaging around the world. 

  Wouldn't suggest that JE Hoover would make a good leader of a government in exile, even if only restricted to Alaska.

  Steve

Well i give WW the naval treaty, because everyone in the end wanted it...due to simple budgetary reason, the war was very expensive and all the great powers desired cut military expediture and the OTL WNT give everyone the possiblity,  so somekind of naval treaty will happen as, except the USA (and i don't know if by remaining neutral they expand the Navy), nobody else can afford it.
It will probably different, maybe more favorable to the British and/or the Anglo-japanese alliance will remain (difficult as Canada want to remain on USA good side), but a treaty will happen.

The problem with Russia is that while has managed to avoid revolution during the war, it's still not safe; the economy is in shambles, nothing obtained at Versailles will be enough (and the British will surely try to moderate her demand to keep Germany as a possible counterweight) and the various nationalities will demand much more freedom while the Polish and the Finnish independence. Basically she will suffer a big period of political violence and economic troubles, so a later red/black revolution can be still on schedule.

  Luke

  Actually Britain could have afforded her planned 8 new capital ships OTL and with a shorter and more successful war this would have been even more the case.  Especially with Russia not defaulting on her debts, although I suspect that a lot of those would have been reduced as with the state that Russia was in I doubt it would have been able to pay more than a fraction.  However western owned businesses in Russia would have survived.

  Plus in this case the US hasn't joined the war effort and if its still talking rather bombastically about completing its 1916 programme, despite growing Congressional opposition then both Britain and Japan would have to respond.  Could well see Japan get into serious fiscal problems which might reduce the capacity and desire for extreme militarism.  The US, without any war experience of their own to cool their war hawks, might complete their ships but its going to leave them with 16 very expensive ships which are already fairly obsolete and with very few light units to support their fleet.

  I agree that Russia is likely to be unstable for quite a long while and there is the danger of extremism of either wing winning out, or simply of the country struggling, rather like a violent version of Weimar Germany stricken by terrorism and instability.  However if it actually fell to some dictatorship its going to negate the idea of the TL as Britain will be too focused on threats in Europe and Asia to really stand off the US.

  Steve

[lukedalton]

May 16, 2019 21:52:40 GMT stevep said:

May 16, 2019 19:19:15 GMT lukedalton said:

Well i give WW the naval treaty, because everyone in the end wanted it...due to simple budgetary reason, the war was very expensive and all the great powers desired cut military expediture and the OTL WNT give everyone the possiblity,  so somekind of naval treaty will happen as, except the USA (and i don't know if by remaining neutral they expand the Navy), nobody else can afford it.
It will probably different, maybe more favorable to the British and/or the Anglo-japanese alliance will remain (difficult as Canada want to remain on USA good side), but a treaty will happen.

The problem with Russia is that while has managed to avoid revolution during the war, it's still not safe; the economy is in shambles, nothing obtained at Versailles will be enough (and the British will surely try to moderate her demand to keep Germany as a possible counterweight) and the various nationalities will demand much more freedom while the Polish and the Finnish independence. Basically she will suffer a big period of political violence and economic troubles, so a later red/black revolution can be still on schedule.

  Luke

  Actually Britain could have afforded her planned 8 new capital ships OTL and with a shorter and more successful war this would have been even more the case.  Especially with Russia not defaulting on her debts, although I suspect that a lot of those would have been reduced as with the state that Russia was in I doubt it would have been able to pay more than a fraction.  However western owned businesses in Russia would have survived.

  Plus in this case the US hasn't joined the war effort and if its still talking rather bombastically about completing its 1916 programme, despite growing Congressional opposition then both Britain and Japan would have to respond.  Could well see Japan get into serious fiscal problems which might reduce the capacity and desire for extreme militarism.  The US, without any war experience of their own to cool their war hawks, might complete their ships but its going to leave them with 16 very expensive ships which are already fairly obsolete and with very few light units to support their fleet.

  I agree that Russia is likely to be unstable for quite a long while and there is the danger of extremism of either wing winning out, or simply of the country struggling, rather like a violent version of Weimar Germany stricken by terrorism and instability.  However if it actually fell to some dictatorship its going to negate the idea of the TL as Britain will be too focused on threats in Europe and Asia to really stand off the US.

  Steve

The war will be shorter, sure but by only few months and the Russian not reneging their debt help the general situation...still their economic (and political) situation is a mess; what i want to say is that while the general situation for the Entente will be slightly better than OTL  and they will have more resources to allocate, military spending not really necessary will be not in the order of the day for political and very pratical reason and while in pure terms they can afford to finance the new battleships, it's hard to justify buy new toys to the Navy with the economic problem due to the war.
The order of the day for everyone in the continent will be: Lean Budget, for a while and a naval treaty that limit the cost of the fleet is a too good occasion to let her go, regardless of what the american will do, but WW will try to get one signed if someone 'suggested' him, expecially if Versailles it's not his show

[stevep]

May 18, 2019 3:43:05 GMT lukedalton said:

May 16, 2019 21:52:40 GMT stevep said:

  Luke

  Actually Britain could have afforded her planned 8 new capital ships OTL and with a shorter and more successful war this would have been even more the case.  Especially with Russia not defaulting on her debts, although I suspect that a lot of those would have been reduced as with the state that Russia was in I doubt it would have been able to pay more than a fraction.  However western owned businesses in Russia would have survived.

  Plus in this case the US hasn't joined the war effort and if its still talking rather bombastically about completing its 1916 programme, despite growing Congressional opposition then both Britain and Japan would have to respond.  Could well see Japan get into serious fiscal problems which might reduce the capacity and desire for extreme militarism.  The US, without any war experience of their own to cool their war hawks, might complete their ships but its going to leave them with 16 very expensive ships which are already fairly obsolete and with very few light units to support their fleet.

  I agree that Russia is likely to be unstable for quite a long while and there is the danger of extremism of either wing winning out, or simply of the country struggling, rather like a violent version of Weimar Germany stricken by terrorism and instability.  However if it actually fell to some dictatorship its going to negate the idea of the TL as Britain will be too focused on threats in Europe and Asia to really stand off the US.

  Steve

The war will be shorter, sure but by only few months and the Russian not reneging their debt help the general situation...still their economic (and political) situation is a mess; what i want to say is that while the general situation for the Entente will be slightly better than OTL  and they will have more resources to allocate, military spending not really necessary will be not in the order of the day for political and very pratical reason and while in pure terms they can afford to finance the new battleships, it's hard to justify buy new toys to the Navy with the economic problem due to the war.
The order of the day for everyone in the continent will be: Lean Budget, for a while and a naval treaty that limit the cost of the fleet is a too good occasion to let her go, regardless of what the american will do, but WW will try to get one signed if someone 'suggested' him, expecially if Versailles it's not his show

  True I had misread your post and thought the conflict ended in late 17 rather than May 18.  However the nature of the war is markedly less damaging for the western powers especially while Russia doesn't go through the chaos of Lenin's rule, with much of the country occupied by the Germans and then plunged into civil war.  Probably more important is that with no direct US military involvement they will have markedly less influence in Europe and also will have pushed ahead with their programme, which is likely to be somewhat weaker as a result since the early version Lexington's are likely to be constructed rather than the post-war design which took some lessons from plans of the Hood the RN supplied, which also is unlikely to happen here.

  Not sure if a frustrated Wilson would be that willing to negotiate a naval treaty if the US is feeling isolated and their programme is somewhat more advanced.  - Thinking about it as I said its likely more ships will be built by ~1921 given that their planned programme isn't interrupted by involvement in the war.

  Plus the aim of the construction for Britain anyway, as well as keeping a vital service reasonably up to date and the industries that maintain the capacity, was actually to save money as those ships would replace older ones on a 1-2 basis.  The fleet would actually shrink a hell of a lot anyway given the ending of the war and the need to release men for the peacetime economy.  Although a lot of money would be saved by no expensive intervention in Russia with the large scale naval activity in the Baltic, Black Sea and elsewhere.