|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 23, 2023 2:52:27 GMT
Would it look like the Fatherland novel/movie where the United states supports the British government in exile in Canada and helps the Russians fight and bleed the Germans in a larger version of the Afghanistan War.
A hell of a lot depends on the status of Britain. Most likely its still formally independent but given a powerful German empire ruling directly or indirectly most of Europe and possibly other areas it could be the government and leadership feels a need to bend with the wind. If so the US is markedly more isolated even if as probably closely allied with Canada and possibly other parts of the former Commonwealth and Empire. That could make it turn inwards a lot and possibly being somewhat autocratic itself as the perceived threat is markedly greater.
If Britain is a close ally of the US in a mutual defence treaty and has its own nukes and probably is still a major player in the ME then the US is probably going to be somewhat more open and used to having an least one significant ally. I suspect it would probably be more likely to seek to contest German influence in other parts of the world rather than going into hunker down mode so to speak.
Sea Lion is ASBish, and somehow I don't think that the Brits would unconditionally surrender, even if food got scarce because of German subs. Especially not with Churchill in charge.
And if IOTL Brexiteers think that they could break with a non-nazi EU, something like this might develop here as well.
I don't see America going for isolation after PH and they won't let another power dominate the world without a fight.
They might do if they don't enter the European war for whatever reason and after an expensive war against Japan - and under the circumstances it could be more costly to the US than OTL their faced with what seems a massive giant dominating most of Europe and neighbouring areas and lack significant allies. In that case a hunker down mentality largely centred around preventing any hostile presence in the American continents could seem attractive to many.
The US-Japan war was coming. All components are rather probable: FDR will seek reelection in 1940; will get reelected too; will act against Japanese imperialism; they'll act as soon as they fear oil might run out. But I don't know how it could become significantly more expensive for the US. If the Brits are too busy with the Nazis?
But thinking about it: If the Reich became strong enough to endanger the Gulf Oil, I expect that isolationism or not, the US will stay involved in the Old World.
And the Nazis wanted to meddle in Latin America as well.
Does the US still fight a war against Japan in this case? If yes, then it contributes to the earlier defeat of Japan, though the rest of SE Asia that are still under European colonial rule might take a lot longer in gaining their independence from their respective overlords. If the US doesn't fight a war against Japan, then chances are that the oppressed populations of SE Asia would be more likely to obtain Japanese assistance in their struggle for independence.
It would depend on the circumstances but assuming that the Japanese come under enough western economic pressure and with China being supported by the US they feel a need to strike south to gain the resources they need. In those circumstances - although it would be the wisest thing to do I can't see Japan ignoring US bases, especially the Philippines. Assuming of course those European colonies aren't under enough German pressure to refuse to take part in an embargo.
As said above: Something like this would probably happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 23, 2023 3:00:02 GMT
Generally: How would US politics change if the nazis won WW2? Of course, we'll have to think about the differences for the various possibilities: - Hitler declares war on the US, as OTL - or he doesn't, and vice versa - Nazis control "only" the European continent (maybe after an armistice with Stalin not even all of Russia to the Urals) - or their empire includes Britain, and/or a big colonial empire in Africa and the Middle East (OK, that's ASBish) - Nazis try to interfere, Cold War-like, in American states - They don't, and expect the same from the US - Will the US politics nazify ("they defeated Communism, and they were generally very successful, so they can't be all wrong") - eugenics and oppression of non-WASPs in the interior, dominating Latin America even more in the exterior? - Or will all anti-nazi powers unite against them, making the US more of a Social Democracy? - Or would the US isolate itself and do whatever they think is best for them? What will the emigrants in the US do? (In the past I started a thread at the other AH forum about it, although it had no conclusion.) link
I think as you say so much depends on the circumstances. For instance how much conflict, even if not open war has occurred between the US and Germany, who is in charge of Germany because if Hitler died then whoever wins the struggle for supremacy would potentially change options a hell of a lot. Germany could conquer Britain or at least force an [initially anyway] friendly at least semi-fascist government on it although that is unlikely. What has happened in the Far East as it could be that with somewhat better Germany diplomacy and Germany not declaring war after Pearl Harbour a lot of Americans could see the Pacific as 'their war'
If Germany controls pretty much the entire continent west of say the Volga - let alone the Urals - and doesn't implode due to the sheer insanity and stupidity of the Nazi regime then it and the Us are going to be at least economic and diplomatic rivals even if no formal cold war type situation. A lot could depend on what other significant players are left, and what sort of state their in.
The other issue is what happens with internal American politics? If Roosevelt and his policies of international involvement are discredited and internally defeated what sort of US emerges as a result?
Basically even without going too far into ASB territory just about anything short of a German [serious] invasion of the Americas is possible. Plus a regime that after Hitler is gone regains a level of sanity and hence proves say as stable as the USSR or on the other extreme you get Gobbles and the like in charge and the system collapses into a massive blood-bath which leaves just about everywhere within reach of it devastated and in chaos.
The other big issue in the medium/long term is can the Nazis get over their rejection of 'Jewish science' and other incompetences and actually develop nukes themselves?
Let's say: - There may have been a US-German war, which ended when Britain wanted to make peace for whatever reasons. There also may have been a US invasion - bigger than Dieppe, but smaller than Normandy, which the Reich won. - For the moment, Hitler will stay in charge. - I used to think that Heisenberg and co. were far from building their own nuke, but recent research has revealed different things. - No Sea Lion. - As said in the other post: If the Gulf oil was threatened, the US would have to stay engaged in the Old World, whether they want or not. - China, India and something like the Arab League might be great powers, albeit not superpowers (yet).
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Oct 23, 2023 17:06:43 GMT
Just to clarify when I'm talking about a small possibility that Britain might come under Nazi control or at least very strong influence I'm not thinking of a 1940 Sealion. Agree that's about as ASB as you can get without going into magic or something like that. Its the possibility that Britain might be at least partly occupied or probably more likely see a change to a government not deeply hostile to the Nazis as a result of a long war in which the US doesn't take a direct part in Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Nov 9, 2023 4:22:51 GMT
Just to clarify when I'm talking about a small possibility that Britain might come under Nazi control or at least very strong influence I'm not thinking of a 1940 Sealion. Agree that's about as ASB as you can get without going into magic or something like that. Its the possibility that Britain might be at least partly occupied or probably more likely see a change to a government not deeply hostile to the Nazis as a result of a long war in which the US doesn't take a direct part in Europe. Something similar as in the Small Change trilogy, if you know it?
Back to topic: If this world will see a tri-polar world order (could well be - and would remind somewhat of 1984, with the Anglo states becoming more of a garrison state...), there'll be much discussion in the Anglo world whether to ally with one of the other two powers to bring down the third one, if they can't take on both. Polarization?
Of course, if everybody has nukes, that point is pretty moot. At least, if we're talking about wars being planned.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Nov 9, 2023 13:39:46 GMT
Just to clarify when I'm talking about a small possibility that Britain might come under Nazi control or at least very strong influence I'm not thinking of a 1940 Sealion. Agree that's about as ASB as you can get without going into magic or something like that. Its the possibility that Britain might be at least partly occupied or probably more likely see a change to a government not deeply hostile to the Nazis as a result of a long war in which the US doesn't take a direct part in Europe. Something similar as in the Small Change trilogy, if you know it?
Back to topic: If this world will see a tri-polar world order (could well be - and would remind somewhat of 1984, with the Anglo states becoming more of a garrison state...), there'll be much discussion in the Anglo world whether to ally with one of the other two powers to bring down the third one, if they can't take on both. Polarization?
Of course, if everybody has nukes, that point is pretty moot. At least, if we're talking about wars being planned.
Well as long as no leadership with considerable powers is bats**t insane.  Although I tend to the opinion of the interpretation that the 'war' in 1984 is very much a dummy one, used to excuse the brutal measures and low living standards and that actual fighting is fairly token while the three dictatorships are basically working together so the ruling groups in each case can maintain their position of total power. Hence I don't think 1984 is a good comparison.
In the suggested case I would say the nature of the Nazi and Soviet systems will greatly limit their ability to develop both technologically and culturally. Also in reality I can't see either India or China for any length of time being stable while under the domination of a foreign power. Ditto probably with much of the Muslim world. As such you might see the attempt to establish some sort of independent bloc from the weaker states which might or might not succeed.
I think the key questions would be: a) Can the western bloc stay fairly liberal and democratic? If so it would have a huge advantage developing technologically - especially if Nazi theology continues to dominate that state as between racism and addiction to mythology your likely to see a serious degrading of education systems in both Germany and those lands under its rule. Thing probably wouldn't be that bad in the Soviet empire but still likely to be heavy restrictions on ideas and the questioning of the status quo in so many areas.
I think the thing that would likely secure democracy in the western bloc would be Britain being a part of the bloc as a liberal nation as it would provide a power centre other than the US with also a feed-back system of interaction with Canada and Australia along with any other areas that stay democratic in the bloc. Note I'm not saying if Britain isn't in the bloc it will become some sort of autocratic state. Think the chances of that would still be small but would be significantly larger if the US is the only significant centre of power in the bloc. There's the possibility that a significant number of the US population in that case might accept the argument that control of the rest of the bloc should be 'secured' to prevent hostile influences gaining power. Which could make the western bloc approach the dysfunctional nature of the other two.
b) When something goes totally off the rails in one of the blocs, which would be pretty certain sooner or later and probably before the end of the 20thC, how does it end up. You could have a relatively peaceful collapse - as with they Soviet empire OTL - or some elite cling to power going for a major war, either to try and divert from internal tensions or simply a dog in the manger attitude! Which with the numbers of nukes about that could get very nasty. If there is an internal collapse in one of the three powers how would the other two respond? If one tries to seize power/control of at least part of the collapsing bloc then again the chances of everything going to hell is likely to increase greatly. From either the target bloc lashing out in defence or the third bloc feeling forced to intervene to stop the 2nd gaining too many resources.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Nov 11, 2023 21:39:17 GMT
Something similar as in the Small Change trilogy, if you know it?
Back to topic: If this world will see a tri-polar world order (could well be - and would remind somewhat of 1984, with the Anglo states becoming more of a garrison state...), there'll be much discussion in the Anglo world whether to ally with one of the other two powers to bring down the third one, if they can't take on both. Polarization?
Of course, if everybody has nukes, that point is pretty moot. At least, if we're talking about wars being planned.
Well as long as no leadership with considerable powers is bats**t insane. Although I tend to the opinion of the interpretation that the 'war' in 1984 is very much a dummy one, used to excuse the brutal measures and low living standards and that actual fighting is fairly token while the three dictatorships are basically working together so the ruling groups in each case can maintain their position of total power. Hence I don't think 1984 is a good comparison.
In the suggested case I would say the nature of the Nazi and Soviet systems will greatly limit their ability to develop both technologically and culturally. Also in reality I can't see either India or China for any length of time being stable while under the domination of a foreign power. Ditto probably with much of the Muslim world. As such you might see the attempt to establish some sort of independent bloc from the weaker states which might or might not succeed.
I think the key questions would be: a) Can the western bloc stay fairly liberal and democratic? If so it would have a huge advantage developing technologically - especially if Nazi theology continues to dominate that state as between racism and addiction to mythology your likely to see a serious degrading of education systems in both Germany and those lands under its rule. Thing probably wouldn't be that bad in the Soviet empire but still likely to be heavy restrictions on ideas and the questioning of the status quo in so many areas.
I think the thing that would likely secure democracy in the western bloc would be Britain being a part of the bloc as a liberal nation as it would provide a power centre other than the US with also a feed-back system of interaction with Canada and Australia along with any other areas that stay democratic in the bloc. Note I'm not saying if Britain isn't in the bloc it will become some sort of autocratic state. Think the chances of that would still be small but would be significantly larger if the US is the only significant centre of power in the bloc. There's the possibility that a significant number of the US population in that case might accept the argument that control of the rest of the bloc should be 'secured' to prevent hostile influences gaining power. Which could make the western bloc approach the dysfunctional nature of the other two.
b) When something goes totally off the rails in one of the blocs, which would be pretty certain sooner or later and probably before the end of the 20thC, how does it end up. You could have a relatively peaceful collapse - as with they Soviet empire OTL - or some elite cling to power going for a major war, either to try and divert from internal tensions or simply a dog in the manger attitude! Which with the numbers of nukes about that could get very nasty. If there is an internal collapse in one of the three powers how would the other two respond? If one tries to seize power/control of at least part of the collapsing bloc then again the chances of everything going to hell is likely to increase greatly. From either the target bloc lashing out in defence or the third bloc feeling forced to intervene to stop the 2nd gaining too many resources.
When I mentioned 1984, I mainly thought about the tripolar world order and the fact that the Anglosphere will (have to) be more of a garrison state than IOTL. Not Ingsoc, but a step in that direction.
a) Yes, if the nazis didn't have scientists who received a good education in Weimar or the kaiserreich even, they'd have done even worse in that regard. And I don't really know how to fix that. The Soviets at least profited from the one or other scientist who believed in the dream of communism, but how will the nazis convince Anglo scientists to support them? By offering them a big farm in conquered Ukraine with some hundred serfs?
b) Currently I'm not even 100% sure about how to make them win the war. For the first 20 post-war years, I have some ideas re: internal development. But I don't think that any of the three blocks will crumble that soon.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Nov 12, 2023 19:40:51 GMT
Well as long as no leadership with considerable powers is bats**t insane. Although I tend to the opinion of the interpretation that the 'war' in 1984 is very much a dummy one, used to excuse the brutal measures and low living standards and that actual fighting is fairly token while the three dictatorships are basically working together so the ruling groups in each case can maintain their position of total power. Hence I don't think 1984 is a good comparison.
In the suggested case I would say the nature of the Nazi and Soviet systems will greatly limit their ability to develop both technologically and culturally. Also in reality I can't see either India or China for any length of time being stable while under the domination of a foreign power. Ditto probably with much of the Muslim world. As such you might see the attempt to establish some sort of independent bloc from the weaker states which might or might not succeed.
I think the key questions would be: a) Can the western bloc stay fairly liberal and democratic? If so it would have a huge advantage developing technologically - especially if Nazi theology continues to dominate that state as between racism and addiction to mythology your likely to see a serious degrading of education systems in both Germany and those lands under its rule. Thing probably wouldn't be that bad in the Soviet empire but still likely to be heavy restrictions on ideas and the questioning of the status quo in so many areas.
I think the thing that would likely secure democracy in the western bloc would be Britain being a part of the bloc as a liberal nation as it would provide a power centre other than the US with also a feed-back system of interaction with Canada and Australia along with any other areas that stay democratic in the bloc. Note I'm not saying if Britain isn't in the bloc it will become some sort of autocratic state. Think the chances of that would still be small but would be significantly larger if the US is the only significant centre of power in the bloc. There's the possibility that a significant number of the US population in that case might accept the argument that control of the rest of the bloc should be 'secured' to prevent hostile influences gaining power. Which could make the western bloc approach the dysfunctional nature of the other two.
b) When something goes totally off the rails in one of the blocs, which would be pretty certain sooner or later and probably before the end of the 20thC, how does it end up. You could have a relatively peaceful collapse - as with they Soviet empire OTL - or some elite cling to power going for a major war, either to try and divert from internal tensions or simply a dog in the manger attitude! Which with the numbers of nukes about that could get very nasty. If there is an internal collapse in one of the three powers how would the other two respond? If one tries to seize power/control of at least part of the collapsing bloc then again the chances of everything going to hell is likely to increase greatly. From either the target bloc lashing out in defence or the third bloc feeling forced to intervene to stop the 2nd gaining too many resources.
When I mentioned 1984, I mainly thought about the tripolar world order and the fact that the Anglosphere will (have to) be more of a garrison state than IOTL. Not Ingsoc, but a step in that direction.
a) Yes, if the nazis didn't have scientists who received a good education in Weimar or the kaiserreich even, they'd have done even worse in that regard. And I don't really know how to fix that. The Soviets at least profited from the one or other scientist who believed in the dream of communism, but how will the nazis convince Anglo scientists to support them? By offering them a big farm in conquered Ukraine with some hundred serfs?
b) Currently I'm not even 100% sure about how to make them win the war. For the first 20 post-war years, I have some ideas re: internal development. But I don't think that any of the three blocks will crumble that soon.
On point b) who do you mean by "make them win"? Presumably its the western bloc. However would expect provided its not too autocratic itself the west will have a sizeable edge over the other two blocs but doing so without a massive nuclear exchange or the mayhem that generates from either/both dictatorships collapsing and the territories they formally controlled are in chaos.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Nov 16, 2023 2:57:51 GMT
When I mentioned 1984, I mainly thought about the tripolar world order and the fact that the Anglosphere will (have to) be more of a garrison state than IOTL. Not Ingsoc, but a step in that direction.
a) Yes, if the nazis didn't have scientists who received a good education in Weimar or the kaiserreich even, they'd have done even worse in that regard. And I don't really know how to fix that. The Soviets at least profited from the one or other scientist who believed in the dream of communism, but how will the nazis convince Anglo scientists to support them? By offering them a big farm in conquered Ukraine with some hundred serfs?
b) Currently I'm not even 100% sure about how to make them win the war. For the first 20 post-war years, I have some ideas re: internal development. But I don't think that any of the three blocks will crumble that soon.
On point b) who do you mean by "make them win"? Presumably its the western bloc. However would expect provided its not too autocratic itself the west will have a sizeable edge over the other two blocs but doing so without a massive nuclear exchange or the mayhem that generates from either/both dictatorships collapsing and the territories they formally controlled are in chaos.
I'd prefer the Allies to win the Cold War indeed, but before I have to find a non-ASBish way to have the nazis win WW2. That's what I meant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Nov 18, 2023 17:40:43 GMT
Recently I found this old Harper's article (careful, the number of articles they let you read is limited): harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/Seems quite useful. I'd recommend you though to take the second paragraph with an amount of salt. Compare this what she says about Mr. J.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 30, 2024 0:37:25 GMT
*bump* This kind of TLs is a subset of those based on the interesting question: How would a three-way Cold War actually look like? I have to admit, I don't know of TLs where this was done. (The Race by Turtledove? Or is that actually four-way, with the democratic Anglosphere, nazism/fascism, Communism, and the Race?) Best ones I found at the web: www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/small-country-big-consequences-a-tale-of-a-three-way-cold-war-and-hot-war.184384/www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/kalter-krieg-a-tl-of-a-three-way-cold-war.231829/Even if we go back in history, it's hard to find equivalents. * Classical Europe? Rome, Carthage, and the Greeks? But the Greeks were split, and when only Rome, Egypt, and the Seleucids were left, Rome was too powerful. * Byzantium/Persia/Arabs? Quickly was no three-way anymore. * India? At the end, only Ashoka was left, but I couldn't tell from my head who his opponents were. * China? Depends when. ** Before the first emperor: When only three states were left, Qin already was the designated winner. ** Before Genghis: Jin/Sung/Hsi-Hsia? Didn't take very long either. ** Age of Three Kingdoms: Might be interesting, but I don't know much about it. Also, in this case, all participants had the same culture. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 30, 2024 20:47:14 GMT
*bump* This kind of TLs is a subset of those based on the interesting question: How would a three-way Cold War actually look like? I have to admit, I don't know of TLs where this was done. (The Race by Turtledove? Or is that actually four-way, with the democratic Anglosphere, nazism/fascism, Communism, and the Race?) Best ones I found at the web: www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/small-country-big-consequences-a-tale-of-a-three-way-cold-war-and-hot-war.184384/www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/kalter-krieg-a-tl-of-a-three-way-cold-war.231829/Even if we go back in history, it's hard to find equivalents. * Classical Europe? Rome, Carthage, and the Greeks? But the Greeks were split, and when only Rome, Egypt, and the Seleucids were left, Rome was too powerful. * Byzantium/Persia/Arabs? Quickly was no three-way anymore. * India? At the end, only Ashoka was left, but I couldn't tell from my head who his opponents were. * China? Depends when. ** Before the first emperor: When only three states were left, Qin already was the designated winner. ** Before Genghis: Jin/Sung/Hsi-Hsia? Didn't take very long either. ** Age of Three Kingdoms: Might be interesting, but I don't know much about it. Also, in this case, all participants had the same culture.
With China I think once the Han had established an actual history of a unified empire you had a foundation on which any sufficiently successful leader/conqueror could try for reuniting China it was always more likely than continued lasting disunity.
With India I think most unified empires were largely in the Ganges valley, at least before the last gasp expansion of the Moghal empire under Aurangzeb which managed to control most/all of the south and then the more successful British Raj which led to the foundation of modern India.
A possibly 3 way which lasted for a while was the Byzantine/Caliphate/Khazar empire although the latter is generally considered markedly weaker - albeit that for the period the Caliphate was a coherent state it was markedly stronger than Byzantium.
Another might be Britain, France and Spain in extra-European activities in the 18thC, with other powers such as the Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal, Venice being significantly weaker. Albeit again the Bourbon Compact meant that for much of the time France and Spain were generally allies against Britain, which was often backed by Portugal and sometimes the Netherlands.
|
|
|
|
Post by quantumimmortal on Jul 30, 2024 11:53:16 GMT
I've always been in the boat that the question wasn't really who would win WW2, but who would have the US on their side. That determines who wins. The waking giant can't be stopped. The US went from being a sizable naval power, to having more military naval power, ships, and tonnage than all other nations in the world COMBINED in just 6 years. And they didn't even have much trouble doing it, all while also supplying multiple other nations. So this question can be asked if the US remains isolationist or even joins the war on Germany's side. But once Germany declared war on the US, it was game over, only a matter of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jul 31, 2024 22:51:32 GMT
I've always been in the boat that the question wasn't really who would win WW2, but who would have the US on their side. That determines who wins. The waking giant can't be stopped. The US went from being a sizable naval power, to having more military naval power, ships, and tonnage than all other nations in the world COMBINED in just 6 years. And they didn't even have much trouble doing it, all while also supplying multiple other nations. So this question can be asked if the US remains isolationist or even joins the war on Germany's side. But once Germany declared war on the US, it was game over, only a matter of time. This makes sense, so at the very least, a German victory against the US is veeery improbable. Even if you don't demand a victory, but only the US to decide to leave the "Reich" alone, as the "führer" would have accepted.
Currently it's in 1942, with the "Reich" and the Soviets having made a separate peace. I'm thinking about a rushed invasion of the Old World happening ITTL. That way, the weakness of the US (no war experience) would be matched against the German strength. Repelling such an invasion (with a force stronger than at Dieppe, but weaker than in Normandy) is the best the Wehrmacht can do, methinks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Aug 3, 2024 10:08:07 GMT
I see two possibilities for a three-way Cold War. Unfortunately, they're mutually exclusive:
1. The medium powers play off the three superpowers against each other.
2. The three superpowers agree one day to "mop up" the smaller powers. Improbable, but not impossible.
|
|
ewellholmes
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 82
Likes: 66
|
Post by ewellholmes on Aug 8, 2024 6:45:05 GMT
Generally: How would US politics change if the nazis won WW2?
Of course, we'll have to think about the differences for the various possibilities:
- Hitler declares war on the US, as OTL
- or he doesn't, and vice versa
- Nazis control "only" the European continent (maybe after an armistice with Stalin not even all of Russia to the Urals)
- or their empire includes Britain, and/or a big colonial empire in Africa and the Middle East (OK, that's ASBish) This means that come 1941, Stalin doesn't have his intelligence work in Japan and thus doesn't order a partial mobilization in April. This means there are ~900,000 fewer Soviet troops available once Operation Barbarossa kicks off, meaning the Axis invasion force is not ~50% larger relative to the Red Army but double their size. Leningrad and Moscow are both captured before the first rains, and Soviet winter counter-offensives are just too weak at that point to make any serious headway. The Germans achieve the A-A Line by the Fall of 1942, and the Ural Line by the Summer of 1943. The Anglo-Americans cut an Armistice deal with Berlin in 1943, as does a rump Soviet state that retains Siberia and Central Asia (Maybe still under Stalin?). Japan is left to fend for itself and ultimately goes down in 1947 under the weight of atomic bombings, blockade and Anglo-American-Soviet invasion with millions of additional casualties. Germany detonates its own atomic bomb by 1949, and takes the lead in rocketry and thus ICBMs in the 1950s, while the Americans have Hydrogen bombs exclusively until the Germans catch up around 1960. This was already occurring Pre-War and was one of the main if not the main reason FDR took a harder line on Hitler from 1938 onwards. German companies were out-competing their American counterparts in Latin America and it wasn't until 1942 the Americans manage to extinguish their influence: This competition would probably resume unless the United States is willing to construct a strong entity to bind Latin America to it, which opens up many interesting prospects in of itself. Maybe not necessarily "Nazify" in the literal sense, but I suspect American politics would take a Far Right turn in some ways, and "Left wing" in others. For one, in the long run, I very much doubt Britain could sustain the type of conditions this Cold War would create; they would need a detente with Germany sooner or later given the need to re-establish normal trading relations with Europe as well as demilitarization to reduce the burden to their budget and society. This would effectively be this timeline's version of the Sino-Soviet split, with the weakening of the American bloc probably leading to an effective end to the Cold War by 1980 or so. What American society would look like by that point is very different to the one that we know. For one, it would be one far more open to/accustomed to central planning of the type OTL Britain and Sweden did Post-War. It's likely that, after the horrors of Operation Downfall with Japan and the need to shore up domestic support to stay militarized to face down the German threat, things like Universal Healthcare and such will have been passed just as Britain did after WWII. Socially, however, is where things could be very different. For one thing, American society was already pretty Anti-Semitic even before WWII:This trend would actually grow during the War, too:It's thus entirely possible that, with an extremely costly war and Post-War economic troubles, combined with the already existing sentiment and lack of knowledge of the Holocaust given Axis victory in Europe, Post-War American society could take a very hostile stance towards its own Jewish population. What shape that would take I do not know, nor care to speculate upon given the dark directions that could take. Outside of the Jewish population of the United States, Culling the Masses: The Democratic Origins of Racist Immigration Policy in the Americas by David Scott FitzGerald argues the United States Government abandoned its national-origins system for selecting immigrants as a symbolic global statement of openness meant to support its underlying hard geopolitical goals in the Cold War. It was thus a matter of self interested diplomatic policy on the part of Washington, rather than a genuine expression of racial egalitarianism. The strategic impulses that led to this however wouldn't exist in this ATL, however, because the Post-War order is far different; arrangements that led to equal votes for nations, such as the UN General Assembly, won't exist or will not be global in scope. Decolonization is also delayed due to the Axis empires existing and no Soviet support for colonial insurgencies, reducing the need to accommodate Post-Colonial governments, whereas forty countries with a quarter of the world's population gained their independence between 1945 and 1960 and thus introduced new pressure on the U.S. to change its immigration policy. So, without the 1965 Immigration Act, what would the U.S. look like? For one, the population would be a lot smaller, at 252 million (Discounting the effects of more casualties in this Alt WWII for ease):  The ethnic composition would be far different as well:  |
|
Although I tend to the opinion of the interpretation that the 'war' in 1984 is very much a dummy one, used to excuse the brutal measures and low living standards and that actual fighting is fairly token while the three dictatorships are basically working together so the ruling groups in each case can maintain their position of total power. Hence I don't think 1984 is a good comparison. 