USA of 2002 transported to 1942

[stevep]

Dec 16, 2021 18:03:20 GMT Zyobot said:

Dec 16, 2021 17:51:20 GMT miletus12 said:

I forgot to mention that US crypto will be reading everyone's cables, radio message and telephone calls as soon as the Americans (NSA) build the spy communication sites in northern Alaska, Australia and the UK.

That might take a year or two.

Wonder if a diplomatic ruckus will materialize over this? I know nations spy on each other all the time, but considering that the US is from sixty years into the future and has the technology to prove it, I can imagine everyone else being wary of American surveillance capabilities.

  Yes but how can anyone do anything about it? Even if you tried to exclude them from your country, which is likely to be economically and technologically costly it won't stop them, especially as they rebuild their spy satellite network.  Given the US's aversion to international agreements their not even likely to play lip service to any treaty.  The world would just have to get used to a big brother type environment until they can catch up, which would probably take decades at least.

[Zyobot]

Dec 17, 2021 11:57:55 GMT stevep said:

Dec 16, 2021 18:03:20 GMT Zyobot said:

Wonder if a diplomatic ruckus will materialize over this? I know nations spy on each other all the time, but considering that the US is from sixty years into the future and has the technology to prove it, I can imagine everyone else being wary of American surveillance capabilities.

  Yes but how can anyone do anything about it? Even if you tried to exclude them from your country, which is likely to be economically and technologically costly it won't stop them, especially as they rebuild their spy satellite network.  Given the US's aversion to international agreements their not even likely to play lip service to any treaty.  The world would just have to get used to a big brother type environment until they can catch up, which would probably take decades at least.

I suppose so, though it’d degrade international trust and kick off “whisperings” behind closed doors about what the US is up to. Ditto since American spies abroad will better blend in with their surroundings than downtimers spying in America, at least at first.

Speaking of which, the latter Forties and whole Fifties should be some interesting decades. Not just economically or foreign policy-wise, but also with regard to Counterculture 2.0 as American media and pop culture spreads to other countries. In which case, I’m guessing younger generations will be much more receptive and will do the bulk of the activism. (With their elders, of course, more or less taking a “We’re grateful for America’s role in World War II, but not for what it brings with it!” attitude in turn.) More reactionary downtimers also have a specific nation they can point to as the origin point of youthful agitation this time, so there’s that. As such, I’m wondering if you could see generational divides between pro-America downtimers and “America-skeptics”, though this will also be determined by what America itself does next.

[stevep]

Dec 17, 2021 13:37:33 GMT Zyobot said:

Dec 17, 2021 11:57:55 GMT stevep said:

  Yes but how can anyone do anything about it? Even if you tried to exclude them from your country, which is likely to be economically and technologically costly it won't stop them, especially as they rebuild their spy satellite network.  Given the US's aversion to international agreements their not even likely to play lip service to any treaty.  The world would just have to get used to a big brother type environment until they can catch up, which would probably take decades at least.

I suppose so, though it’d degrade international trust and kick off “whisperings” behind closed doors about what the US is up to. Ditto since American spies abroad will better blend in with their surroundings than downtimers spying in America, at least at first.

Speaking of which, the latter Forties and whole Fifties should be some interesting decades. Not just economically or foreign policy-wise, but also with regard to Counterculture 2.0 as American media and pop culture spreads to other countries. In which case, I’m guessing younger generations will be much more receptive and will do the bulk of the activism. (With their elders, of course, more or less taking a “We’re grateful for America’s role in World War II, but not for what it brings with it!” attitude in turn.) More reactionary downtimers also have a specific nation they can point to as the origin point of youthful agitation this time, so there’s that. As such, I’m wondering if you could see generational divides between pro-America downtimers and “America-skeptics”, though this will also be determined by what America itself does next.

  Good point about this US providing a fairly singular target in terms of the 'source' of radical new ideas.  That could have some impacts.  As you say a lot depends on what the US does and which issues it pushes and how their represented.  A 2002 US won't have the same wonk culture and extreme division as the current one say but it will have issues such as racial and sexual equality along with issues like abortion and rights for homosexuality that would be alien to many people in 1942 and afterwards.  OTL the US was socially still very conservative in the post-war period but here it will be a couple of generations ahead of just about everybody else.

  One issue might be how much Bush and Co. push the ending of imperialism.  Many in the US will oppose the continuation of European imperialism but at the same time they will know some of the dangers of pushing it too quickly with the chaos in much of Africa for instance and also the emergence of autocratic regimes in many areas.  For instance - referencing the current TL about a clash between Indonesia and the western powers would it actually support the Dutch holding large areas of the eastern DEI longer on the basis that, with some guidance from the US those areas will faire better than under rule from whoever's the current dictator in Java?  Possibly Borneo, western New Guinea and some of the smaller islands here.  Similarly while they won't like what the French might try and do in FIC would they prefer to support them more against the communists.  Of course a lot depends on what the US does about the USSR and events in China.  I could see them thinking they could avoid Mao's victory in China - rightly or wrongly - and with a 1942 appearance possibly leave the USSR a hell of a lot weaker territoriality, although they might end up with more population overall without the bitter fighting of 1942-45.

[miletus12]

Dec 17, 2021 14:55:43 GMT stevep said:

Dec 17, 2021 13:37:33 GMT Zyobot said:

I suppose so, though it’d degrade international trust and kick off “whisperings” behind closed doors about what the US is up to. Ditto since American spies abroad will better blend in with their surroundings than downtimers spying in America, at least at first.

Speaking of which, the latter Forties and whole Fifties should be some interesting decades. Not just economically or foreign policy-wise, but also with regard to Counterculture 2.0 as American media and pop culture spreads to other countries. In which case, I’m guessing younger generations will be much more receptive and will do the bulk of the activism. (With their elders, of course, more or less taking a “We’re grateful for America’s role in World War II, but not for what it brings with it!” attitude in turn.) More reactionary downtimers also have a specific nation they can point to as the origin point of youthful agitation this time, so there’s that. As such, I’m wondering if you could see generational divides between pro-America downtimers and “America-skeptics”, though this will also be determined by what America itself does next.

  Good point about this US providing a fairly singular target in terms of the 'source' of radical new ideas.  That could have some impacts.  As you say a lot depends on what the US does and which issues it pushes and how their represented.  A 2002 US won't have the same wonk culture and extreme division as the current one say but it will have issues such as racial and sexual equality along with issues like abortion and rights for homosexuality that would be alien to many people in 1942 and afterwards.  OTL the US was socially still very conservative in the post-war period but here it will be a couple of generations ahead of just about everybody else.

  One issue might be how much Bush and Co. push the ending of imperialism.  Many in the US will oppose the continuation of European imperialism but at the same time they will know some of the dangers of pushing it too quickly with the chaos in much of Africa for instance and also the emergence of autocratic regimes in many areas.  For instance - referencing the current TL about a clash between Indonesia and the western powers would it actually support the Dutch holding large areas of the eastern DEI longer on the basis that, with some guidance from the US those areas will faire better than under rule from whoever's the current dictator in Java?  Possibly Borneo, western New Guinea and some of the smaller islands here.  Similarly while they won't like what the French might try and do in FIC would they prefer to support them more against the communists.  Of course a lot depends on what the US does about the USSR and events in China.  I could see them thinking they could avoid Mao's victory in China - rightly or wrongly - and with a 1942 appearance possibly leave the USSR a hell of a lot weaker territoriality, although they might end up with more population overall without the bitter fighting of 1942-45

Dec 17, 2021 11:57:55 GMT stevep said:

I am not sure how that works out for a 1940s era civilization dominated by the British system. The ruling class in the UK will hate this 2002 America. They, the British upper class, still believe in empire. The Americans will obviously destroy the British empire as they also take Germany apart.   

I mean this is the man with whom they will deal.

[Zyobot]

Dec 19, 2021 5:50:50 GMT miletus12 said:

Dec 17, 2021 14:55:43 GMT stevep said:

  Good point about this US providing a fairly singular target in terms of the 'source' of radical new ideas.  That could have some impacts.  As you say a lot depends on what the US does and which issues it pushes and how their represented.  A 2002 US won't have the same wonk culture and extreme division as the current one say but it will have issues such as racial and sexual equality along with issues like abortion and rights for homosexuality that would be alien to many people in 1942 and afterwards.  OTL the US was socially still very conservative in the post-war period but here it will be a couple of generations ahead of just about everybody else.

  One issue might be how much Bush and Co. push the ending of imperialism.  Many in the US will oppose the continuation of European imperialism but at the same time they will know some of the dangers of pushing it too quickly with the chaos in much of Africa for instance and also the emergence of autocratic regimes in many areas.  For instance - referencing the current TL about a clash between Indonesia and the western powers would it actually support the Dutch holding large areas of the eastern DEI longer on the basis that, with some guidance from the US those areas will faire better than under rule from whoever's the current dictator in Java?  Possibly Borneo, western New Guinea and some of the smaller islands here.  Similarly while they won't like what the French might try and do in FIC would they prefer to support them more against the communists.  Of course a lot depends on what the US does about the USSR and events in China.  I could see them thinking they could avoid Mao's victory in China - rightly or wrongly - and with a 1942 appearance possibly leave the USSR a hell of a lot weaker territoriality, although they might end up with more population overall without the bitter fighting of 1942-45

Dec 17, 2021 11:57:55 GMT stevep said:

I am not sure how that works out for a 1940s era civilization dominated by the British system. The ruling class in the UK will hate this 2002 America. They, the British upper class, still believe in empire. The Americans will obviously destroy the British empire as they also take Germany apart.   

I mean this is the man with whom they will deal.

Are you implying that the US may apply some “police action” to deal with Britain? Because, while I agree the Americans would liberally pressure the British into decolonizing, I doubt full-blown war with them would be acceptable to the US electorate. They were, after all, America’s allies in World War II and have a Special Relationship with the UK that Iraq and Afghanistan do not.

In that case, maybe the US will fund, train, and arm pro-independence movements rather than engage in direct conflict? Not saying it’s be a good idea—especially with Dubya in the driver’s seat—but if America wants the empire gone and the British aren’t willing to cooperate, then I guess the Cold War has just become three-way. (Albeit with the USSR significantly weakened and Stalin gone, better still.)

[stevep]

Dec 19, 2021 7:29:26 GMT Zyobot said:

Dec 19, 2021 5:50:50 GMT miletus12 said:

I am not sure how that works out for a 1940s era civilization dominated by the British system. The ruling class in the UK will hate this 2002 America. They, the British upper class, still believe in empire. The Americans will obviously destroy the British empire as they also take Germany apart.   

I mean this is the man with whom they will deal.

Are you implying that the US may apply some “police action” to deal with Britain? Because, while I agree the Americans would liberally pressure the British into decolonizing, I doubt full-blown war with them would be acceptable to the US electorate. They were, after all, America’s allies in World War II and have a Special Relationship with the UK that Iraq and Afghanistan do not.

In that case, maybe the US will fund, train, and arm pro-independence movements rather than engage in direct conflict? Not saying it’s be a good idea—especially with Dubya in the driver’s seat—but if America wants the empire gone and the British aren’t willing to cooperate, then I guess the Cold War has just become three-way. (Albeit with the USSR significantly weakened and Stalin gone, better still.)

  A lot would depend on the circumstances.  After all its not just Britain that the US would be picking a fight with on this.  Albeit that the occupation of France, Belgium and the Netherlands have weakened their ability to maintain their colonial powers by this time.   Although Vichy France is still in place here.  Plus Portugal and Spain are neutral - albeit fascist in nature.  If he waits until after the war and Attlee wins the following election he could be pushing at an open door in many places given Britain's desire to cuts its costs.  There would be issues with places with substantial white settler minorities and also those who want to maintain a close relationship with Britain and maintain its protection against larger and more aggressive neighbours.  Nothing cut and dry here.

  The question would be how much of a mess would W be willing to make of the world?  If he insists that all European - and other? - colonization ends pretty much immediately who's going to maintain order in the resulting chaos?  The OTL declonization at least gave time for some structures and governments to be put in place albeit they frequently failed.  Doing this a lot more quickly would not be good for anyone, or for world trade and order in general.  The Indian sub-continent is about ready, albeit your going to have some bloodshed at the very least.  Elsewhere someone's going to have to maintain order - the US? 

  Plus what about Algeria, a full part of metropolitan France?  True it has a less than complete franchise but then so has many areas of the world at this time, including 1942 US if it had still been about.

  Similarly would the 2002 US insist on other reforms to match its laws?  Sexual, racial and religious equality.  Acceptance of homosexuality, abortion, contraception etc?

[miletus12]

Dec 19, 2021 7:29:26 GMT Zyobot said:

Are you implying that the US may apply some “police action” to deal with Britain? Because, while I agree the Americans would liberally pressure the British into decolonizing, I doubt full-blown war with them would be acceptable to the US electorate. They were, after all, America’s allies in World War II and have a Special Relationship with the UK that Iraq and Afghanistan do not.

In that case, maybe the US will fund, train, and arm pro-independence movements rather than engage in direct conflict? Not saying it’s be a good idea—especially with Dubya in the driver’s seat—but if America wants the empire gone and the British aren’t willing to cooperate, then I guess the Cold War has just become three-way. (Albeit with the USSR significantly weakened and Stalin gone, better still.)

There was no doubt that the Americans will insist that their aide against the Axis will be contingent on serious post war concessions. The British and the Russians are in deep trouble.

The foreign policy which Bush, the younger, followed; was entirely questionable, but if Colin Powell has input:

Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]

It is almost certain, that Bush the Younger, would insist that decolonization is a post-war American objective. It is almost certain that Powell would insist that all political and economic means and advantages short of armed conflict be used to achieve that policy goal.

That could eventually mean an Afghanistan type solution for the Russian and British empires post-war, if arm twisting and diplomacy fails to move either empire to decolonize. National Liberation Movements, as enforcement instruments and US support of them, are very plausible in such contingencies where Stalin and Attlee fail to get on board with such a decolonization effort.

[Zyobot]

Dec 19, 2021 7:29:26 GMT Zyobot said:

(Albeit with the USSR significantly weakened and Stalin gone, better still.)

Just checked the story again and it seems Stalin perished in an "unfortunate accident", with Zhukov as temporary replacement while the Politburo figures out who to replace him. Curious as to who succeeds Stalin and what their temperament will be, especially with the point about how much trouble Russia's in and what lengths the US will go to stamp out communism. Post-WW2 is when the Reds were at their most murderous IOTL, after all!

Dec 19, 2021 16:22:32 GMT miletus12 said:

That could eventually mean an Afghanistan type solution for the Russian and British empires post-war, if arm twisting and diplomacy fails to move either empire to decolonize. National Liberation Movements, as enforcement instruments and US support of them, are very plausible in such contingencies where Stalin and Attlee fail to get on board with such a decolonization effort.

Yeah, the second half of the twentieth century ought to be "interesting", no doubt. I know there's plenty of room for the US to squander its second chance, but the bungled decolonization and communism atrocities of OTL make doing better a pretty low bar to clear.

Really curious about what future history books will say about this, now that I think about it. Having 2002 America materialize out of nowhere will go down as one of history's great turning points, no doubt.

[miletus12]

Dec 19, 2021 19:32:09 GMT Zyobot said:

Really curious about what future history books will say about this, now that I think about it. Having 2002 America materialize out of nowhere will go down as one of history's great turning points, no doubt.

The historians would have the easy part of the mess to clean up. The people, tearing their hair out, will be the physicists trying to explain the following violations of physics;

1. causality.
2. time asymmetry.
3. conservation principles of mass / energy, and information.
4. entropy.
5. probability.
6. entanglement.

and George W. Bush; who violates both the grandfather paradox and common sense.

Not to mention locality and the Bell theorem.

[stevep]

Dec 19, 2021 16:22:32 GMT miletus12 said:

Dec 19, 2021 7:29:26 GMT Zyobot said:

Are you implying that the US may apply some “police action” to deal with Britain? Because, while I agree the Americans would liberally pressure the British into decolonizing, I doubt full-blown war with them would be acceptable to the US electorate. They were, after all, America’s allies in World War II and have a Special Relationship with the UK that Iraq and Afghanistan do not.

In that case, maybe the US will fund, train, and arm pro-independence movements rather than engage in direct conflict? Not saying it’s be a good idea—especially with Dubya in the driver’s seat—but if America wants the empire gone and the British aren’t willing to cooperate, then I guess the Cold War has just become three-way. (Albeit with the USSR significantly weakened and Stalin gone, better still.)

There was no doubt that the Americans will insist that their aide against the Axis will be contingent on serious post war concessions. The British and the Russians are in deep trouble.

The foreign policy which Bush, the younger, followed; was entirely questionable, but if Colin Powell has input:

Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]

It is almost certain, that Bush the Younger, would insist that decolonization is a post-war American objective. It is almost certain that Powell would insist that all political and economic means and advantages short of armed conflict be used to achieve that policy goal.

That could eventually mean an Afghanistan type solution for the Russian and British empires post-war, if arm twisting and diplomacy fails to move either empire to decolonize. National Liberation Movements, as enforcement instruments and US support of them, are very plausible in such contingencies where Stalin and Attlee fail to get on board with such a decolonization effort.

  Well this is a recipe for chaos big time.  Looking at that set of conditions.

Is a vital national security interest threatened? - No.
Do we have a clear attainable objective? - Not really.  The objective is clear but is it clearly obtainable?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? - Definitely not.
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? - Depends on what that means
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? - No - unless you mean the US runs for the hills when it all comes apart.
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? - Definitely not.
Is the action supported by the American people? - Probably until they see the results of chaos being spread world-wide and possibly have their children dying trying to restore order.
Do we have genuine broad international support?[2] - Not in 1942 you don't.

  I can see a basis for a somewhat earlier decolonisation - say withing 10-15 years - although that could well end up in most cases no better than OTL.  However if, as I think your intending all European empires are ended pretty much straight away your talking about a massive international disaster.  Think the people most likely to gain would be extreme groups such as communists.

  Not to mention how you define decolonization?  For instance in the Soviet empire who defines borders between say Poles, Ukrainians, Belarus and Russians?  What happens to Russian majority pockets in non-Russian SSRs - i.e. are they forced to move, are boundaries changed or what?  Good luck trying to get agreed borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan, let alone Georgia and its own minority groups or the Asian SSRs. 

  Similarly is the US going to step in to prevent the mass slaughter that occurred in partition in India - especially since they know its going to happen?  Or try and maintain democracy in Burma/Myanmar.  Let alone the borders across Africa or what happens to European and Asian minority groups there.

  One other obvious question is what happens in Palestine?  Are they going to allow an Israeli state to be established, especially since it could see a lot more Jews surviving to flee to it.  If so what borders will it have and what happens with Jerusalem?

  The issue with power is that it needs to be matched with responsibility.  If the US is going to insist that X,Y,Z are going to happen it must deal with the fall-out.

[miletus12]

Dec 20, 2021 10:31:56 GMT stevep said:

Well this is a recipe for chaos big time.  Looking at that set of conditions.

Let us look at the US sitation from the US point of view, and not the British point of view since those parameters enunciated by Colin Powell are American in origin.

Is a vital national security interest threatened? - No.

The actual assessment is that national survival is at stake. The Americans have just been time shifted from 2002 to 1942. Their economic supply chains have been disrupted. Foreign markets of 2002, are non-existent. Their very oil supply of 2002 (Middle East) is in British hands is under-developed and is for all practical purposes interrupted. The Americans have to act to fix these dislocations as well as defeat Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Stalin and Mussolini in that exact order. Expect shock and awe, with follow up demarches.

Do we have a clear attainable objective? - Not really.  The objective is clear but is it clearly obtainable?

To quote the famous American grand strategist, James Carville: It's the economy.

Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? - Definitely not.

If not immediately, the Americans will have a state department paper within the week and an operations plan within the same time frame. These are not the yahoos who misran Vietnam. But there will be consequences.

Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? - Depends on what that means.

CIA. NSA. NRO. State Department FIS. FBI, ONI, AID, Treasury Department Intelligence Bureau, DEA, BATF etc.; plus, whatever foreign sources can be subjected to bribery, extortion, cooption or whatnot. If MacArthur had the goods on people and used those means clumsily to get what he wanted, how would 1942 foreign leaders fare against a 2002 Cold War trained national espionage and intelligence system? Not too good. All means short of war would be aplenty.

Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? - No - unless you mean the US runs for the hills when it all comes apart.

Why would the Americans run and from whom? National liberation fronts? That would be the only threat and those can be managed by cooption.

Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? - Definitely not.

Let us just note that the Americans have a 60 year jump on everyone else. They can figure the trends out because they know the trends before anyone else does.

Is the action supported by the American people? - Probably until they see the results of chaos being spread world-wide and possibly have their children dying trying to restore order.

What is not understood... We will pay any price, bear any burden.

Do we have genuine broad international support?[2] - Not in 1942 you don't.

Bribes and American ambassadors giving those who have the Germans at their throats; "The facts of life."

  I can see a basis for a somewhat earlier decolonisation - say withing 10-15 years - although that could well end up in most cases no better than OTL.  However if, as I think your intending all European empires are ended pretty much straight away your talking about a massive international disaster.  Think the people most likely to gain would be extreme groups such as communists.

The post-WWII "decolonization" catastrophes in Africa, the Middle East, and Southern Asia were all the faults of the British, French and Dutch. Even China was Britain's fault. The management of decolonization along a better path might be bungled by 2002 America, but the hells that former colonies went through to gain their freedoms from colonial imperialist regimes and maybe a more rational national borders scheme which can result can be evolved from a more peaceful transition to home rule in the former colonies. It depends on whether those who lived through the history, learned from it, and might apply the lessons learned to avert those colonial wars and WNLs. One expects that the generation that lost Vietnam to be better informed and prepared for what is coming. But who knows? Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by human inertia to change.

 

Not to mention how you define decolonization?  For instance in the Soviet empire who defines borders between say Poles, Ukrainians, Belarus and Russians?  What happens to Russian majority pockets in non-Russian SSRs - i.e. are they forced to move, are boundaries changed or what?  Good luck trying to get agreed borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan, let alone Georgia and its own minority groups or the Asian SSRs.

 The "colonies" of the Russian empire are those who finally broke away from the Soviet Union's inevitable collapse. The Russians in those territories have two options. Adapt to the changes expected, or return to Russia. Either way, the mess will happen. Sooner and more peacefully would have been better.   

Similarly is the US going to step in to prevent the mass slaughter that occurred in partition in India - especially since they know its going to happen?  Or try and maintain democracy in Burma/Myanmar.  Let alone the borders across Africa or what happens to European and Asian minority groups there.

The Americans can pick and choose among the national liberation movements. And, yes, a lot of them WILL be communist. It was what happened. or should have happened and cannot be stopped.  

  One other obvious question is what happens in Palestine?  Are they going to allow an Israeli state to be established, especially since it could see a lot more Jews surviving to flee to it.  If so what borders will it have and what happens with Jerusalem?

Once again, it is a British mess that has to be cleaned up. Killing this person might be necessary.   For the rest, bribes, extortion and perhaps recruitment of local leaders to see things fall out a better way. 

The issue with power is that it needs to be matched with responsibility.  If the US is going to insist that X,Y,Z are going to happen it must deal with the fall-out.

Like the Americans did during the Cold War? 

[stevep]

Dec 22, 2021 6:09:45 GMT miletus12 said:

Dec 20, 2021 10:31:56 GMT stevep said:

[tr][td class="content"][article]

Well this is a recipe for chaos big time.  Looking at that set of conditions.

Let us look at the US siutation from the US point of view, and not the British point of view since those parameters enunciated by Colin Powell are American in origin.

Is a vital national security interest threatened? - No.

The actual assessment is that national survival is at stake. The Americans have just been time shifted from 2002 to 1942. Their economic supply chains have been disrupted. Foreign markets of 2002, are non-existent. Their very oil supply of 2002 (Middle East) is in British hands is under-developed and is for all practical purposes interrupted. The Americans have to act to fdix these dislocations as well as defeat Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Stalin and Mussolini in that exact order. Expect shock and awe, with follow up demarches.

Do we have a clear attainable objective? - Not really.  The objective is clear but is it clearly obtainable?

To quote the famous American grand strategist, James Carville: Its the economy.

Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? - Definitely not.

If not immediately, the Americans will have a state department paper within the week and an operations plan within the same time frame. These are not the yahoos who misran Vietnam. But there will be consequences.

Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? - Depends on what that means.

CIA. NSA. NRO. State Department FIS. FBI, ONI, AID, Treasury Department Intelligence Bureau, DEA, BATF etc.; plus whatever foreign sources can be subjected to bribery, extortion, cooption or whatnot. If MacArthur had the goods on people and used those means clumsily to get what he wanted, how would 1942 foreign leaders fare against a 2002 Cold War trained national espionage and intelligence system? Not too good. All means short of war would be aplenty.

Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? - No - unless you mean the US runs for the hills when it all comes apart.

Why would the Americans run and from whom? National liberation fronts? That would be the only threat and those can be managed by cooption.

Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? - Definitely not.

Let us just note that the Americans have a 60 year jump on everyone else. They can figure the trends out because they know the trends before anyone else does.

Is the action supported by the American people? - Probably until they see the results of chaos being spread world-wide and possibly have their children dying trying to restore order.

What is not understood... We will pay any price, bear any burden.

Do we have genuine broad international support?[2] - Not in 1942 you don't.

Bribes and American ambassadors giving those who have the Germans at their throats; "The facts of life."

  I can see a basis for a somewhat earlier decolonisation - say withing 10-15 years - although that could well end up in most cases no better than OTL.  However if, as I think your intending all European empires are ended pretty much straight away your talking about a massive international disaster.  Think the people most likely to gain would be extreme groups such as communists.

The post-WWII "decolonization" catastrophes in Africa, the Middle East, and Southern Asia were all the faults of the British, French and Dutch. Even China was Britain's fault. The management of decolonization along a better path might be bungled by 2002 America, but the hells that former colonies went through to gain their freedoms from colonial imperialist regimes and maybe a more rational national borders scheme which can result can be evolved from a more peaceful transition to home rule in the former colonies. It depends on whether those who lived through the history, learned from it, and might apply the lessons learned to avert those colonial wars and WNLs. One expects that the generation that lost Vietnam to be better informed and prepared for what is coming. But who knows? Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by human inertia to change.

 

Not to mention how you define decolonization?  For instance in the Soviet empire who defines borders between say Poles, Ukrainians, Belarus and Russians?  What happens to Russian majority pockets in non-Russian SSRs - i.e. are they forced to move, are boundaries changed or what?  Good luck trying to get agreed borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan, let alone Georgia and its own minority groups or the Asian SSRs.

 The "colonies" of the Russian empire are those who finally broke away from the Soviet Union's inevitable collapse. The Russians in those territories have two options. Adapt to the changes expected, or return to Russia. Either way, the mess will happen. Sooner and more peacefully would have been better.   

Similarly is the US going to step in to prevent the mass slaughter that occurred in partition in India - especially since they know its going to happen?  Or try and maintain democracy in Burma/Myanmar.  Let alone the borders across Africa or what happens to European and Asian minority groups there.

The Americans can pick and choose among the national liberation movements. And, yes, a lot of them WILL be communist. It was what happened. or should have happened and cannot be stopped.  

  One other obvious question is what happens in Palestine?  Are they going to allow an Israeli state to be established, especially since it could see a lot more Jews surviving to flee to it.  If so what borders will it have and what happens with Jerusalem?

Once again, it is a British mess that has to be cleaned up. Killing this person might be necessary.   For the rest, bribes, extortion and perhaps recruitment of local leaders to see things fall out a better way. 

The issue with power is that it needs to be matched with responsibility.  If the US is going to insist that X,Y,Z are going to happen it must deal with the fall-out.

Like the Americans did during the Cold War? 

  miletus12,

  To sum up:

a)  The basic aim is not human rights or national liberation but securing control of raw materials for US businesses and wealth for the US population.  That I can understand the US aiming for as its been a pretty common theme for them.

b)  Any messes that result will be blamed on 3rd parties as the US is never responsible for the chaos it creates.  - Again a familiar chant from Washington.  That you seek to blame Britain for Palestine and China - especially when the latter has been a US puppet pretty much from ~1940 - shows how deep the denial goes.  Plus of course your not answering the question of what the US is going to do to prevent chaos in such areas?  For instance in both India - using the wider version of the term - and Palestine how is the US going to handle the ethnic cleansing?

c)  If you think that a lot of the 3rd world will welcome the sudden ending of formal colonialism - which in many cases will cause even more problems than OTL - only to have US control imposed so they can be sources of cheap minerals for the US - and possibly closed markets for their exports as well - then I think you would find yourself very quickly proved wrong.  Or the US imposing rulers, borders and the like on them.

d)  "Like the Americans did during the Cold War? " - Do you mean supporting thuggish dictators, encouraging coups against any popular movement that might challenge their political and economic control?  I rather suspect that the people who remembered the US losing Vietnam aren't going to be happy having a dozen such conflicts around the world.

  I think your vastly underestimating the multiple cans of worms - in some cases more like wyrms - that your suggesting the US opens.

  Steve

[miletus12]

Dec 22, 2021 14:35:42 GMT stevep said:

To sum up:

a)  The basic aim is not human rights or national liberation but securing control of raw materials for US businesses and wealth for the US population.  That I can understand the US aiming for as its been a pretty common theme for them.

1. A nation will seek economic advantage. But look at the thesis here?
a. The 2002 continental US pops into 1942 Earth in the middle of a world war.
b. Its imported goods supply chains are gone.
c. Its oil supply from the middle east is gone. (No supertankers.)
2. So the Americans have to fight a world war and they have to scramble to get the resources they need. Canada, Mexico and Venezuela are not going to be happy at all, but if the Americans have to fight, then molybdenum, manganese, uranium, diamonds, copper, silver (for torpedoes and military satellites) and especially OIL, for everything from motor fuels and lubricants to plastics will be needed immediately.

b)  Any messes that result will be blamed on 3rd parties as the US is never responsible for the chaos it creates.  - Again a familiar chant from Washington.  That you seek to blame Britain for Palestine and China - especially when the latter has been a US puppet pretty much from ~1940 - shows how deep the denial goes. 

The Balfour Declaration predates anything the US ever did wrong in the Middle East. Plus, there was a chap named T.E. Lawrence who promised the Arabs more than he had any right, which is the charitable way to look at the British lies and treachery of the First World War, but that is a viewpoint the UK Foreign Office likes to omit when they criticize American efforts to clean up that mess.

As for China, there were TWO possible southern land routes to supply Chiang Kai Shek to sustain him in his war against the Japanese. One ran through Burma. the other ran through Bhutan. Guess which one the British allowed in 1940? Guess which one the Americans, not the British, had to re-establish and build anew?

As for why China is all Britain's fault, how about the Opium Wars?

Plus of course your not answering the question of what the US is going to do to prevent chaos in such areas?  For instance in both India - using the wider version of the term - and Palestine how is the US going to handle the ethnic cleansing?

[/div][/quote]

If one means the current Palestinian question, the obvious answer is to figure out how to stop the Syrian migrations south into the Jordan River Valley. Or find another solution to the Jewish Homeland question. But it all comes to how to satisfy people to whom the British government have lied. It is an inherited mess.

c)  If you think that a lot of the 3rd world will welcome the sudden ending of formal colonialism - which in many cases will cause even more problems than OTL - only to have US control imposed so they can be sources of cheap minerals for the US - and possibly closed markets for their exports as well - then I think you would find yourself very quickly proved wrong.  Or the US imposing rulers, borders and the like on them.

That is exactly the British empire in 1942 the Americans have to destroy, described in summary. The Americans in the real history changed the game via guaranteed international trade and not the 1930s British Empire Exclusion scheme. Closed markets were a British practice and tactic.

d)  "Like the Americans did during the Cold War? " - Do you mean supporting thuggish dictators, encouraging coups against any popular movement that might challenge their political and economic control?  I rather suspect that the people who remembered the US losing Vietnam aren't going to be happy having a dozen such conflicts around the world.

  I think your vastly underestimating the multiple cans of worms - in some cases more like wyrms - that your suggesting the US opens.

If one means, using any method to stop global nuclear war, then yes those unsavory methods were employed. The same methods are being employed today.

As for the Vietnam era platoon and ship's division officers who fought in Vietnam and are now 2002 American generals and admirals; they will not be happy. But then WWII American commanders were not happy with the mess the British left them in 1948 and 1956. They somehow managed.

[stevep]

Dec 24, 2021 4:40:08 GMT miletus12 said:

Dec 22, 2021 14:35:42 GMT stevep said:

To sum up:

a)  The basic aim is not human rights or national liberation but securing control of raw materials for US businesses and wealth for the US population.  That I can understand the US aiming for as its been a pretty common theme for them.

1. A nation will seek economic advantage. But look at the thesis here?
a. The 2002 continental US pops into 1942 Earth in the middle of a world war.
b. Its imported goods supply chains are gone.
c. Its oil supply from the middle east is gone. (No supertankers.)
2. So the Americans have to fight a world war and they have to scramble to get the resources they need. Canada, Mexico and Venezuela are not going to be happy at all, but if the Americans have to fight, then molybdenum, manganese, uranium, diamonds, copper, silver (for torpedoes and military satellites) and especially OIL, for everything from motor fuels and lubricants to plastics will be needed immediately.

b)  Any messes that result will be blamed on 3rd parties as the US is never responsible for the chaos it creates.  - Again a familiar chant from Washington.  That you seek to blame Britain for Palestine and China - especially when the latter has been a US puppet pretty much from ~1940 - shows how deep the denial goes. 

The Balfour Declaration predates anything the US ever did wrong in the Middle East. Plus, there was a chap named T.E. Lawrence who promised the Arabs more than he had any right, which is the charitable way to look at the British lies and treachery of the First World War, but that is a viewpoint the UK Foreign Office likes to omit when they criticize American efforts to clean up that mess.

As for China, there were TWO possible southern land routes to supply Chiang Kai Shek to sustain him in his war against the Japanese. One ran through Burma. the other ran through Bhutan. Guess which one the British allowed in 1940? Guess which one the Americans, not the British, had to re-establish and build anew?

As for why China is all Britain's fault, how about the Opium Wars?

Plus of course your not answering the question of what the US is going to do to prevent chaos in such areas?  For instance in both India - using the wider version of the term - and Palestine how is the US going to handle the ethnic cleansing?

[/div][/quote]

If one means the current Palestinian question, the obvious answer is to figure out how to stop the Syrian migrations south into the Jordan River Valley. Or find another solution to the Jewish Homeland question. But it all comes to how to satisfy people to whom the British government have lied. It is an inherited mess.

c)  If you think that a lot of the 3rd world will welcome the sudden ending of formal colonialism - which in many cases will cause even more problems than OTL - only to have US control imposed so they can be sources of cheap minerals for the US - and possibly closed markets for their exports as well - then I think you would find yourself very quickly proved wrong.  Or the US imposing rulers, borders and the like on them.

That is exactly the British empire in 1942 the Americans have to destroy, described in summary. The Americans in the real history changed the game via guaranteed international trade and not the 1930s British Empire Exclusion scheme. Closed markets were a British practice and tactic.

d)  "Like the Americans did during the Cold War? " - Do you mean supporting thuggish dictators, encouraging coups against any popular movement that might challenge their political and economic control?  I rather suspect that the people who remembered the US losing Vietnam aren't going to be happy having a dozen such conflicts around the world.

  I think your vastly underestimating the multiple cans of worms - in some cases more like wyrms - that your suggesting the US opens.

If one means, using any method to stop global nuclear war, then yes those unsavory methods were employed. The same methods are being employed today.

As for the Vietnam era platoon and ship's division officers who fought in Vietnam and are now 2002 American generals and admirals; they will not be happy. But then WWII American commanders were not happy with the mess the British left them in 1948 and 1956. They somehow managed.

[/quote][/div]

 a)  So basically might makes right and we [the US] will grab anything we need want.

 b)  Yes Lawrence did promise more than he should have.  It does seem that he was serious and but for the need for continued alliance with France - thanks to the collapse of the Russian empire and the cowardice of the US in hiding away after fouling up the peace settlement - possibly a more stable situation could have developed.  However its what it is and still a mess due to differing desires by assorted groups and the US has to find a way to do better.  I notice your significantly lacking in saying how to do that other than some strange comment about stopping "the Syrian migrations south into the Jordan River Valley"??  Which is also not going to make any difference to India for instance.

  On China you think other nations wouldn't have traded opium [and didn't OTL] if Britain hadn't.  Or that the Qing dynasty would have flourished if that had somehow been prevented?  Which would mean an autocratic backward dictatorship ruling into the 20thC - I wonder how that would have made China better for its people.

  On the route through Burma it was actually the British that reestablished it after they managed to drive the Japanese out of Burma.  That they lost it in the 1st place was due to the colossal overstretch Britain was facing against Germany, Italy and Japan pretty much alone.

c)  You really need to learn some history.  Yes from ~1932 Britain did finally apply tariffs on imports to it and its empire.  Something to do with the collapse of world trade and the high level of international protectionism, both of which largely caused by one country and we know which that was.   British tariffs were markedly lower than those in many other states in that period and since the empire including self-governing areas such as the dominions and India it wasn't just a one sided decisions set up solely to benefit Britain.  It was the US that were the champions of protectionism and close systems until WWII left the competition prostate.  Even afterwards their terms for Philippine independence saw the islands outside US tariff walls but having to give unimpeded access to US goods.  The US position after 1945 was markedly harder for small nations than Britain's was.

d)  You think suppressing democratic rights across much of the world and supporting brutal dictators who would pander to US business interests is "stop global nuclear war".  Be serious, especially since such behaviour by the US started in the Caribbean long before nuclear weapons existed.  See the Banana_Wars for some pf the examples.

e)  A mess the US had a part in making and will according to you make far worse TTL.  I doubt the 2002 US will have the desire for the massive indirect empire your proposing.  Probably dictating its whims in places like the ME and other mineral rich areas and occasional attacks on assorted places when the chaos affects some US citizens but otherwise walking away pretending the chaos is nothing to do with it.  I can't see it supporting any measures that require real work, like establishing stable democracies in locations like eastern Europe and Russia.  While China is still likely to end up inflicted with Mao.  POssibly here with matters made worse but intermittent attacks by the US giving his regime greater legitimacy.