While this is probably *extremely* unlikely, here goes: What if some misunderstanding and/or miscommunication results in war between the Anglo-Americans and the Soviet Union shortly after the defeat both Germany and Japan in World War II? To elaborate on this, while the Soviet Union would initially perform very well in such a war and advance to the Rhine River (if not beyond), logistical overreach would prevent the Soviet Union from conquering all of Western Europe and give the Anglo-Americans the necessary time to bring additional forces to France in order to launch a successful counterattack against the Soviet forces in Western Europe.
After this successful counterattack, the Anglo-Americans (along with their French and Italian allies) slowly begin pushing Soviet forces further and further east. Eventually the Soviet Union's *extremely* massive bleeding (starting from 1941; after all, the Soviet Union certainly bled itself dry during World War II, and now it has to fight a new war with the Anglo-Americans) causes the Soviet Union to begin cracking and weakening due to severe manpower shortages in the military and on the home front (as in, in factories which are necessary for the Soviet Union's war effort). (After all, a country which formerly had 200 million people and which loses 30+ million people within a time-frame of less than 10 years certainly *can't* sustain *much* more losses before it begins cracking and weakening.) Anyway, this Soviet cracking and implosion eventually results in some members of Stalin's inner circle successfully overthrowing and killing Stalin. Unfortunately for the Soviet Union, though, these Soviet coup plotters begin fighting for power among themselves afterwards. In turn, this results in the Soviet Union descending into total chaos.
As a result of the Soviet military and Soviet home front both cracking and weakening due to severe manpower shortages, and as a result of the fight for power among the Soviet coup plotters (who previously overthrew and killed Stalin), the war goes *extremely* favorably for the Anglo-Americans (along with their French, Italian, German, et cetera Allies). Eventually, the Anglo-Americans and their allies win this war with the Soviet Union by having their forces liberate all of Eastern Europe from Communist rule and push very deep within the Soviet Union itself.
Anyway, what kind of peace would the victorious Anglo-Americans and their allies impose on the Soviet Union (or on the Soviet Union's successor state) in this TL?
Any thoughts on this?
The Aftermath of an Anglo-American Victory in a Late 1940s War With the Soviet Union?
Re: The Aftermath of an Anglo-American Victory in a Late 1940s War With the Soviet Union?
Also, for the record, while an Anglo-American occupation of *all* of Russia would probably be unfeasible for logistical reasons, it would probably be well within the logistical abilities and power capabilities of the Anglo-Americans in this TL to push the Soviet Union/Russia all of the way back to Russia's post-1991 borders in our TL.
Re: The Aftermath of an Anglo-American Victory in a Late 1940s War With the Soviet Union?
A very interesting scenario.
While I can't be sure what a future world would look like, I think it is certain that American influence would be even more prevalent than it is today. The lack of a cold war would have all kinds of repercussions... I'll have to think about those for a while.
While I can't be sure what a future world would look like, I think it is certain that American influence would be even more prevalent than it is today. The lack of a cold war would have all kinds of repercussions... I'll have to think about those for a while.
Re: The Aftermath of an Anglo-American Victory in a Late 1940s War With the Soviet Union?
Please let us know your thought about this scenario of mine after you are done thinking, though!pintere wrote:A very interesting scenario.
While I can't be sure what a future world would look like, I think it is certain that American influence would be even more prevalent than it is today. The lack of a cold war would have all kinds of repercussions... I'll have to think about those for a while.
Re: The Aftermath of an Anglo-American Victory in a Late 1940s War With the Soviet Union?
The best thing to do is to consider the various changes that happened in the 20th century and take the Soviet Union out of the picture. I'll try for a few examples.
With the Soviet Union gone, there would be no other superpower to challenge America's influence over the world. One change would be in international borders. There would probably be no north/south Korea division without any Soviet sphere of influence in the Pacific. And if the Soviet Union is unable to support the regime, it is possibly that Communist China wouldn't have taken over the country, especially if the nationalists had the support of the US. There'd be no division of Germany, and I doubt Vietnam would be divided in the same way it was in our time.
Without a strong backer of the ideology, it is likely that the spread of Communism everywhere would be slowed, if not stopped altogether. This has repercussions in South American and other Communist countries that emerged during the 20th century.
I don't know how technological progress would be affected. On the one hand, no major enemy would no doubt slow some technological progress in the US, while perhaps accelerating others. A big casualty would be the space program. While I think a moon landing would have certainly happened nonetheless, lack of competition with the USSR would probably cause delays in much of the historical landmarks of the space race. Other technological progress caused by a desire to stay ahead of the USSR might also lag slightly.
The collapse of European empires would depend on the degree to which the US intended to support them. Lack of a powerful Russian backing would no doubt affect some of the uprisings in our time, and if the US really did want to prevent independent nations from forming, this could push back the collapse of the British, French, etc. empires by quite a bit.
I could probably go on, but the formula I've given should provide a good lens for predicting other changes to the second half of the 20th century.
With the Soviet Union gone, there would be no other superpower to challenge America's influence over the world. One change would be in international borders. There would probably be no north/south Korea division without any Soviet sphere of influence in the Pacific. And if the Soviet Union is unable to support the regime, it is possibly that Communist China wouldn't have taken over the country, especially if the nationalists had the support of the US. There'd be no division of Germany, and I doubt Vietnam would be divided in the same way it was in our time.
Without a strong backer of the ideology, it is likely that the spread of Communism everywhere would be slowed, if not stopped altogether. This has repercussions in South American and other Communist countries that emerged during the 20th century.
I don't know how technological progress would be affected. On the one hand, no major enemy would no doubt slow some technological progress in the US, while perhaps accelerating others. A big casualty would be the space program. While I think a moon landing would have certainly happened nonetheless, lack of competition with the USSR would probably cause delays in much of the historical landmarks of the space race. Other technological progress caused by a desire to stay ahead of the USSR might also lag slightly.
The collapse of European empires would depend on the degree to which the US intended to support them. Lack of a powerful Russian backing would no doubt affect some of the uprisings in our time, and if the US really did want to prevent independent nations from forming, this could push back the collapse of the British, French, etc. empires by quite a bit.
I could probably go on, but the formula I've given should provide a good lens for predicting other changes to the second half of the 20th century.
Re: The Aftermath of an Anglo-American Victory in a Late 1940s War With the Soviet Union?
Completely agreed.pintere wrote:The best thing to do is to consider the various changes that happened in the 20th century and take the Soviet Union out of the picture.
OK.I'll try for a few examples.
Completely agreed with all of this.With the Soviet Union gone, there would be no other superpower to challenge America's influence over the world. One change would be in international borders. There would probably be no north/south Korea division without any Soviet sphere of influence in the Pacific. And if the Soviet Union is unable to support the regime, it is possibly that Communist China wouldn't have taken over the country, especially if the nationalists had the support of the US. There'd be no division of Germany,
Also, though, do you think that Poland will get its 1939 borders restored in the East? In addition to this, do you think that the victorious Anglo-Americans (and their French, German, Italian, et cetera allies) will strip the Soviet Union/Russia of most of its non-Russian majority areas? Also, do you think that the victorious Anglo-Americans would try implementing democracy in the (former) Soviet Union?I'm not so sure about that. After all, didn't Ho Chi Minh and his buddies have a lot of street cred in Vietnam for fighting the French?and I doubt Vietnam would be divided in the same way it was in our time.
Completely agreed.Without a strong backer of the ideology, it is likely that the spread of Communism everywhere would be slowed, if not stopped altogether. This has repercussions in South American and other Communist countries that emerged during the 20th century.
Completely agreed.I don't know how technological progress would be affected. On the one hand, no major enemy would no doubt slow some technological progress in the US, while perhaps accelerating others. A big casualty would be the space program. While I think a moon landing would have certainly happened nonetheless, lack of competition with the USSR would probably cause delays in much of the historical landmarks of the space race. Other technological progress caused by a desire to stay ahead of the USSR might also lag slightly.
Wasn't the U.S. historically (more-or-less) anti-imperialist, though?The collapse of European empires would depend on the degree to which the US intended to support them. Lack of a powerful Russian backing would no doubt affect some of the uprisings in our time, and if the US really did want to prevent independent nations from forming, this could push back the collapse of the British, French, etc. empires by quite a bit.
Actually, if possible, please do go on.I could probably go on, but the formula I've given should provide a good lens for predicting other changes to the second half of the 20th century.
Re: The Aftermath of an Anglo-American Victory in a Late 1940s War With the Soviet Union?
For reference:
Also, in regards to restoring Poland's 1939 borders in the East, the issue with this would be that this might encourage Germany (a.k.a. the country which was responsible for the Holocaust) to demand a return of some of its own Eastern territories:
Also, in regards to restoring Poland's 1939 borders in the East, the issue with this would be that this might encourage Germany (a.k.a. the country which was responsible for the Holocaust) to demand a return of some of its own Eastern territories:
Re: The Aftermath of an Anglo-American Victory in a Late 1940s War With the Soviet Union?
@Pintere: Can you please respond to my last reply to you here?