Fascist-Communist WWII/Cold War

[eurofed]

Nov 23, 2016 3:52:27 GMT lordroel said:

Nov 22, 2016 20:58:09 GMT eurofed said:

Without a general war, FDR would have to leave the White House in 1940,

But there was still a great depression in the United States that he manged to end.

The Great Depression had mostly faded by 1940 and recovery was ongoing (if anything, it was not yet complete also because of the 1937 recession caused by FDR's decision to tighten the budget too much too soon). FDR most likely would not be able to persuade the Democratic party to break precedent and nominate him for a third term without the emergency situation created by the war in Europe or ongoing economic crisis, lest the controversy this would create give a serious chance to the GOP. His attempt to pack the SCOTUS in 1937 had failed and caused serious backlash, and since the 1938 midterm election the Congress was controlled by a coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats, so despite his New Deal successes his political capital was not limitless. Even FDR himself probably would not be determined to get a third term in these conditions (he considered declining it IOTL) and would deem his legacy safe if another pro-New Deal Democrat gets elected. In 1940, this would in all likelihood be Cordell Hull or James Farley (Truman was a nobody, Garner was too disliked and conservative, and Wallace had little support in the party and was too controversial). In the less likely case of a Republican victory, most likely Dewey or Taft would get the nomination since peacetime conditions would not provide a favorable atmosphere for Willkie's rise.

[lordroel]

Nov 23, 2016 14:22:39 GMT eurofed said:

Nov 23, 2016 3:52:27 GMT lordroel said:

But there was still a great depression in the United States that he manged to end.

 Dewey or Taft would get the nomination since peacetime conditions would not provide a favorable atmosphere for Willkie's rise.

What would their politics be towards Europe.

[eurofed]

Nov 23, 2016 15:54:20 GMT lordroel said:

Nov 23, 2016 14:22:39 GMT eurofed said:

 Dewey or Taft would get the nomination since peacetime conditions would not provide a favorable atmosphere for Willkie's rise.

What would their politics be towards Europe.

Taft would be hardcore isolationist and only concerned with US interests in the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific. Hull, Farley, or Dewey would most likely avoid overt American entanglement in European affairs but show benevolent support for TTL British foreign policy platform: committment to the balance of power, official neutrality between the Axis and the Comintern, de facto support of the Axis to contain the Communists most of the time, as long as the Germans and the Italians stay 'reasonable'. In this regard, the British and the Americans would treat Germany, Italy, and their allies not much differently from how the Western world treated pro-Western dictatorships during the Cold War, if in a more restrained way since the democratic powers have no established alliance bonds with the Axis countries. If a fascist-communist WWII occurs, TTL Axis is unlikely to be seen as the aggressor or the most dangerous side, so American attitude would again mirror the British one in a more subdued way. If Britain stays a pro-Axis neutral, America would go along, repeal the neutrality laws, and provide the Axis countries access to US loans and economic resources on favorable terms, but still within the limits of normal trade relations. If the casus belli turns Britain into a pro-Axis belligerant, US Land-Lease to the Anglo-German-Italian coalition is quite likely.

TTL fascist Germany is not especially racist by 1930s standards, so the main prewar reason for American public opinion to regard it with suspicion and antipathy is removed. If US attitudes towards fascist Italy before the Nazis took power are anything to go by, the Americans would regard its German equivalent with benevolence, as long as it doesn't make any overt show of hostility. Only radical liberals and more so far-leftists would be antagonistic for ideological reasons, but conservatives and centrist liberals would be friendly, or at least not caring and thinking of the Commies as a worse threat.

By the way, this also means the 1936 Berlin Olympics are going to take place and be remembered without any major controversy; there may be some issue about the countries being involved in armed conflicts at the time, but the international community is not going to suspend the games for anything less of a general war, and won't move them unless the host country is directly involved in a conflict. Jesse Owens is still going to be a star, but his performance and legacy won't have any special relevance except for the Afro-American community. The same applies to the 1940 Tokyo Olympics, short of Japan being involved in a shooting war with the Soviets at the time, and to the 1944 London Olympics, if *WWII doesn't occur.  

[thejovian]

This sounds like a really neat timeline, keep it up.

[eurofed]

Nov 23, 2016 18:59:40 GMT thejovian said:

This sounds like a really neat timeline, keep it up.

Well, I have not really planned to extend the 'official' TL beyond the major fork between an Axis-Comintern WWII (with the Anglo-Americans being opportunist neutrals or allies of convenience with OTL priorities reversed) and a multipolar Cold War, that occurs in the early-mid 1940s, since I prefer to leave it open to either outcome. But I'm quite open-minded to share 'unofficial' ideas and reasoned insights about what I may regard as high-probability outcomes of the scenario if people make questions or points.

[lordroel]

Nov 24, 2016 0:50:43 GMT eurofed said:

multipolar Cold War that occurs in the early-mid 1940s, since I prefer to leave it open to either outcome. But I'm quite open-minded to share

I would assume that this multipolar Cold War might be hot in some places.

[eurofed]

Nov 24, 2016 4:12:53 GMT lordroel said:

Nov 24, 2016 0:50:43 GMT eurofed said:

multipolar Cold War that occurs in the early-mid 1940s, since I prefer to leave it open to either outcome. But I'm quite open-minded to share

I would assume that this multipolar Cold War might be hot in some places.

Indeed, as it is usual for these scenarioes. After all, TTL post-Versailles order took shape through a decade-long sequence of revolutions, civil wars, and localized conflicts. If the great powers are somehow able to avoid a general war before MAD locks in, they may keep venting their struggle for power through a series of proxy/localized wars and cloak-and-dagger conflicts. China is already one such battlefield by the beginning of the 1940s. Other areas of Asia may become flashpoints as decolonization inevitably spreads across the continent in the next decade or two. The PoD is too late to change the fate of colonialism in Asia substantially, although of course postcolonial borders and international alignments may change significantly. Africa is a more complex issue since lack of *WWII may delay the pace of decolonization a generation or so and change its pattern significantly. In due time, of course, Africa may become another major field for Cold War conflicts, but only when the Africans are ready to start making major pressure for self-rule. If there is a *WWII, the world that follows is still likely to witness a Cold War or post-Cold War multipolar struggle for power between the great powers, although substantially different from the world we know and to lesser degree from what would unfold w/o a second world war.

Broadly speaking, I assume the critical period for the fork to occur would be the decade between the early-mid 1940s (when the great powers would be and more importantly feel basically ready in military and economic terms for a conventional general war) and the early-mid 1950s (likely latest point when the great powers, or at least the 2-3 likely forerunners among them, would develop the WMD arsenals and delivery systems to create a MAD stalemate in peacetime conditions). As to how the world would come to know the destructive potential of nukes if there is no general war, I expect some... WMD experimentation would inevitably occur in some localized conflict or another.