WI: No Superpowers

[Killer300]

Why? Well, my scenario is this.

1. Soviet Union remains, ironically enough, isolationist because WW2 pans out differently, content to let the capitalists and Fascists beat each other up. The internal issues it has in OTL still remain however, they just aren't as... exposed.
2. Great Depression hits the US a LOT harder, as FDR... well, isn't alive. The US does eventually recover, but it takes much longer, and by the time it does, WW2 is wrapping up. Additionally, World War 2 is much more like World War 1 in this timeline, with all the issues that entails.
3. Germany is, "merely," Fascist, but also doesn't do as well against France. France and the UK get worn out fighting Germany, and Italy at the same time. They do win again, eventually, but it takes much longer.
4. China is able to beat off Japan, as war comes a year later, among other things. It still costs both immense resources however.

So, all the superpowers and potential ones are either exhausted fighting each other, or are too isolationist to care.

Point is, what would the world be like if there were no countries that could project power much beyond their immediate neighbors? Would it better off, or much worse off?

[Doctor Imperialism]

I imagine the Soviet Union would come to bat unless you butterflied away Stalin and his industrialization.

Actually, this TL might be a better one for the Soviets - they haven't lost 25 million young, working age men against Nazi Germany.

[Killer300]

I imagine the Soviet Union would come to bat unless you butterflied away Stalin and his industrialization.

Perhaps, but this is the guy who did the whole, "Socialism in One Country," so he's more isolationist than you may think.

[Killer300]

No other thoughts on this?:(

[Martinus Paduei]

Nature abhors a vacuum.

[MSZ]

If there were no superpowers, there would still be great powers to take their place. So essentially, without the rise of the USSR and the USA in the second half of the XXth century, by virtue of their resources, population, industry, military - they would still be great powers, possibly on equal footing with say the British, French, Germans and Japanese - assuming no or different WW2. What that means is that decolonization takes a different approach - without an ideological conflict, competition for power there would be motivated by pure realpolitik which might be for both better and worse. You would find more local warlords taking power for the sake of power and dealing in death for money - ideology would not lead them to attack class or racial enemies, just political and military ones. It would make the world more unstable, especially in regions of non-strategic importancesuch as Africa, while probably making it more stable in others, as the Great powers would have common interest to keep them that way - such as the middle east. Also, without such a global ideologicalconflict, that conflict would be lesser domesticaly - communism/fascism being more acceptable, while still fringe. Countries being able to develop their own paths of growth, rather than with the "guidance" of other. And of course without an arms race, the money spent on guns would be spent on something else. So essentially, it would be a better place overall - but some places might get more screwed as they wouldn't be able to benefit from the two superpower by playing them against each other.

[SergeantHeretic]

This strikes me as being a smaller meaner more selfish world.A world of, "I got mine, to heck with the rest of you."I don't think I would care to live in such a world.

[Just Leo]

This strikes me as being a smaller meaner more selfish world.A world of, "I got mine, to heck with the rest of you."I don't think I would care to live in such a world.



Don't worry. There would always be a bit of "I got mine and I covet a piece of yours." That doesn't require superpowers.

[SergeantHeretic]

Don't worry. There would always be a bit of "I got mine and I covet a piece of yours." That doesn't require superpowers.
Yes, but a non uperpower U.S> will not be capable of the kinds of altruistic outreach programs that our U.S> actually did.

[Killer300]

There will be a vacuum!:mad::p

With that in mind, well, it would be interesting to me, because I don't think this has really happened in history before.

But over all, yes, some things better, as places truly choose their own path, but in many ways worse, as warlords remain. Additionally, yes, fringe ideologies probably are much more common. That isn't actually, necessarily, a bad thing, but most of the time, it sadly does lead to over all bad results.:(

[SergeantHeretic]

There will be a vacuum!:mad::p

With that in mind, well, it would be interesting to me, because I don't think this has really happened in history before.

But over all, yes, some things better, as places truly choose their own path, but in many ways worse, as warlords remain. Additionally, yes, fringe ideologies probably are much more common. That isn't actually, necessarily, a bad thing, but most of the time, it sadly does lead to over all bad results.:(

It would be fertile grounds for would be world beaters and tyrants.

After all who is going to stop them?

[Killer300]

It would be fertile grounds for would be world beaters and tyrants.

After all who is going to stop them?

And OTL wasn't? Cold War created plenty from dictators sucking up to the Soviets or the Americans to get weapons and cash. In this TL, they'll probably have to improve their economies frequently, as otherwise... well, they won't have the guns to stay in the dictator slot, to say the least.

[Snake Featherston]

This would require a POD that would remove WWII, as in WWII the Soviets are guaranteed to survive what the Nazis would throw at them, due to the inherent systemic weaknesses of Nazis and Fascism it's virtually improbable that unless the war happens in a later timeframe from OTL that the outcome of a Nazi invasion of the USSR and the planning behind it would differ. Too many things remain very contingent there, while the USA of course is never going to have a major invasion of its territory post-1900 outside the ASB forum.

[heyou]

Isn't a "world without superpowers" another way of saying a multipolar world, such as existed 100 years ago and may be starting to emerge
again?

I think rise of USA to the top by mid 20th century was based on 2 things,

One was that a common market covering most of a continent with extraordinary natural resources and a large population was going to become a great power, and would become number one, at least economically, at some point in the past century. I don't see any POD after 1900 that changes that

But the other critical factor was the self destruction of the European powers in 2 wars.

Without 2 World Wars, US and Russia would still becomme increasingly formidable, Britain and France would decline in wealth, influence, power relative to US and Russia, but over a much longer period of time, They would not fall anywhere near as fast or as far as in OTL. That would be true in spades as to Germany

Any timeline where the Europeans pulverize their own continent so thouroughly and then repeat the process 2 decades after seems to me bound to leave US and Russia towering over the survivors

To get and keep a world with several major powers in it throughout the 20th century seems to me impossible with a POD in 1914

[Snake Featherston]

The rise of the USA and USSR reflected a fundamental parallel: both came out of WWII big winners, the USA in a global sense by virtue of being the only state that came out of WWII better than it went into it, the USSR in terms of gaining half of Europe, the prestige of a grand military triumph, and the starting point for its global contest for hegemony, to say nothing of military expansion of its borders and getting away with that. Without WWII, those two will still rise in a completely different way due to something that happens without WWII just as it does with it: de-colonization, as India's independence pre-WWII was a given, and both the USSR and the USA had their own incompatible reasons to favor it, and both will react very badly to the other getting involved.....

[Genmotty]

Well firstly the Axis or Allies is still going to have a victor. Therefore in terms of Geopolitics you've got an 'allience superpower' like NATO was/is.

Secondly, isolationist or not raw economic potential creates superpower even if there is no will to weild power. For instance the US was highly industrialised dueing the 60s and into the 70s to start reaching the tale off point of cheapy economically avalible natural resources, and this is why capitalism was 'broadcast' as free trade to the rest of the world.

So either the US is going to be having the equivllent of the British Miner stikes under Thacher in America or your going to have to break that isolationist stance. Russia is better off since Communist under Stalin was not 'consumerism' and so economic growth is less important than political 5 year plans be they in the armed forces or building cities in the middle of Siberia.

Thirdly what powers are going to rise to fill the vacuum? if the Common Wealth is pooped, then Britians not going to be able to hold onto India is it? So boom there you go, instant regional power that's going to grow into an economic powerhouse not being a vassel in a world where it has suddernly become a center for economic repair.

Simmilarly the Sino-Japanese war has to have a winner, your not going to end up with a stalemate, as much as it would be nice to contrive one. Sooner or later China is going to go industrial, and just like India you have a shift to the east for industry and cheap resources.

Best quote;

"Power is an ilusion, it only exsits where you believe it to exsit."

[revolutionincyberspace]

I imagine the Soviet Union would come to bat unless you butterflied away Sta:cool:lin and his industrialization.

Actually, this TL might be a better one for the Soviets - they haven't lost 25 million young, working age men against Nazi Germany.

The casualty rates commonly given - between 20 and 35 mill are males AND females who varied in age. Stil better as keeping 1/3 of your country from dying (in some cases as much as 1/3) is good

[Killer300]

Hmm. Okay, two things to add, to perhaps make this more plausible.

1. Stalin? Yeah, he's dead. The Soviet Union isn't as centralized, or as totalitarian. Stalin, while a brutal monster, was the only one who could've done industrialization that fast.

2. For the US, who needs to invade it? It already is tearing itself apart because the Great Depression goes on longer, and is even more painful than OTL. There is no relief from World War 2, and government intervention takes longer because Franklin Delano Roosevelt doesn't rise like he did in OTL. You think all the pressure building from that wouldn't explode? While not a civil war, things aren't going to be fun.

[Riain]

Superpower is the logical end state of the industrial revolution. The biggest countries have the greatest resources to convert into national power.

[Genmotty]

Hmm. Okay, two things to add, to perhaps make this more plausible.



Don't work like that Killer300; "If the shoe don't fit, you can't shoehorn her".


Stating; "I want this history/world." while at the same time failing to recognise that there might be many issues with it that prevent history being like that, is the height of naivity.

All we can do is pick a POD, and then chunk through the plausible repurcussions of. Trying to retcon 'a present' with a past is highly contrived to making it total fantasy rather than plausible pertubations to the timeline we know.

That said; "Aliens landed in 1900 and placed icesheets over Russia and the US. Just them, no other states. Then left. ...go figure ¬.¬"

You see my point?

[Killer300]

Don't work like that Killer300; "If the shoe don't fit, you can't shoehorn her".


Stating; "I want this history/world." while at the same time failing to recognise that there might be many issues with it that prevent history being like that, is the height of naivity.

All we can do is pick a POD, and then chunk through the plausible repurcussions of. Trying to retcon 'a present' with a past is highly contrived to making it total fantasy rather than plausible pertubations to the timeline we know.

That said; "Aliens landed in 1900 and placed icesheets over Russia and the US. Just them, no other states. Then left. ...go figure ¬.¬"

You see my point?

Okay, three problems with this.
1. I'm further explaining PODs I stated IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT. I already said the US had a more chaotic Great Depression, and that the USSR states isolationist.
2. I do recognize there are problems with this scenario, otherwise, why would I have added that?
3. Neither the US or the USSR are destined to be superpowers. Brazil, despite having massive access to resources, and lots of manpower, still isn't a superpower. For the first two, both had help from a World War to get that status. Take away involvment in that, and you don't get the set of factors that transform them into superpowers, which here is that they project power beyond their immediate neighbors.