AHC: No superpowers

Ditzy Vixen (RossN)

Ditzy Vixen (RossN)

With a POD of 1900 is it possible to end up with a non-apocolyptic timeline where there are no superpowers by 2014, and preferebly none by the late 20th century in general?

In case it wasn't clear by 'Superpower' I mean something like the USA or the USSR - not x-ray vision.
 

Kalki

Superpowerdom has been the order of the global geo-political system since the dawn of the modern era. One rises and the other falls. Sometimes multiple exist simultaneously, but never for long. Be it the Spanish, the French, the Prussians, the Russians, the Germans, the British, the Soviets or the Americans. That has been the nature of things since the time the world started being integrated under a common geo-political landscape way back in the late 18th century, if not earlier. Such changes are never easy, and never limited to a single PoD and its butterflies.

Such a change would indeed be a challenge. :)
 

Lord Douglas

Kalki said:
Superpowerdom has been the order of the global geo-political system since the dawn of the modern era. One rises and the other falls. Sometimes multiple exist simultaneously, but never for long. Be it the Spanish, the French, the Prussians, the Russians, the Germans, the British, the Soviets or the Americans. That has been the nature of things since the time the world started being integrated under a common geo-political landscape way back in the late 18th century, if not earlier. Such changes are never easy, and never limited to a single PoD and its butterflies.

Such a change would indeed be a challenge. :)
Click to expand...
This I disagree with. There have always been 'Great Powers' in the sense that there have always been powerful nations/empires with the ability to exert political, military and economic influence over a number of smaller nations, but not until the mid-late twentieth century did we get two powers who were head and shoulders above everyone else and that could defeat virtually any combination that did not include the other super-power. During the 19th century Britain may have been the predominant power but it was never miles ahead of France, Russia, Prussia or Austria in the same way that the USA was ahead of Britain in 1960. Certainly it didn't have the military strength to defeat an alliance of more than two of the above without its own allies.
 

Riain

Banned
RossN said:
With a POD of 1900 is it possible to end up with a non-apocolyptic timeline where there are no superpowers by 2014, and preferebly none by the late 20th century in general?

In case it wasn't clear by 'Superpower' I mean something like the USA or the USSR - not x-ray vision.
Click to expand...

Superpower is pretty much deterministic with the invention of modern transportation systems, which allowed the intensive exploitation of huge continental hinterlands for the benefit of the State for first time.
 

CthulhuFhtagn

Banned
With a PoD in 1900, this isn't that hard at all. There are plenty of ways to do it:

1. No WWI: This is by far the easiest way to achieve a multipolar world. The US would be the richest, sure, but it would only be "first among equals", especially with an industrialized Russia, Japan, Germany, CANZUK (Imperial Federation?), Ottoman Empire, France, and possibly India to compete with. Of course, China would be counted too, although its economic growth is likely to be stunted in a world where the Great Powers are free to carve it up as they did pre-WWI.

2. Early 20th century China gets its shit together: Depending on how everything goes down, this could easily lead to at least four powers (US, China, Russia, UK), if not more.

3. No Mao & No License Raj after WWIII: This gives you much faster economic development in China and India. By the late 80s, they're on par economically with the US and USSR, giving you at least four powers. This could go up to 6 or 7 assuming that Japan still does alright and some kind of smaller EU forms (Inner Six only).

Edit: And of course, with a little luck and economic development, there are plenty of other countries that could become major powers (Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico).
 
Last edited:

MattII

Quite a challenge, since it would mean keeping the US down, and they didn't suffer the same weaknesses as Russia China or India. Remember, a superpower nation doesn't mean 'the most powerful in the world', it simply has to be capable of projecting its power well beyond its borders.
 

TxCoatl1970

I'm with Cthulu- WWI royally screwed up the economic and political scene in ways that left the US the winner by default but not a hegemon that could dictate terms as they could after WWII.

If Russia could've avoided the October Revolution and civil war and Stalinist purges/famines etc- it might have taken off or not.

China's development is an x-factor dependent on Japan not getting greedy.
IF the Japanese got sufficiently bloodied by the Russo-Japanese war over Korea, they might not have gotten so froggy annexing Manchuria USW.

FWIW the Japanese could have exercised more soft power and guided the ROC into becoming a friendly power, letting lots more Chinese study and work in Japan as well as Japanese investments in China.

Whether Meiji Taisho Japan would be down with that strategy IDK.

Finding some way for China to avoid the clusterfuck warlord years afrter Yuan Shikai was defeated is a tangle.
 

CthulhuFhtagn

Banned
MattII said:
Remember, a superpower nation doesn't mean 'the most powerful in the world', it simply has to be capable of projecting its power well beyond its borders.
Click to expand...

You're thinking about a Great Power. Right now in OTL, there are 7 of them, with the United States as the superpower. From 1870 to 1943, there were 4-6 of them, depending on your definition.

"Superpower" as a term didn't arise until the Cold War, because there was no other way to describe the incredible military, economic, and cultural advantage that 2 countries (the US and USSR) had over all the rest.
 

Dunning Kruger

Short of Balkanizing the US in the 1930s, I think the US' rise as a superpower is as close to inevitable as you can find. The rare combination of relative political stability, lack of hostile neighbors, massive industrial infrastructure, and access to commodities provide such ridiculous advantages relative to the rest of world. I am sure you could plot a path outside of Balkanization but it would be really difficult and require a series of scenarios that each, independently, are unlikely. Just my 2 cents.
 
Beedok

Beedok

In 1900 the Royal Navy could effectively outgun all other navies combined. They could easily project power in every corner of the globe. They had over 400 million inhabitants (and they weren't all being oppressed, India sent 1.7 million soldiers in WWI, and in WWII they produced the largest all volunteer army in history). They weren't a land power, and that's why WWI dragged on so long, but that's like the Soviets having not having an exceptional navy during the cold war.

Meanwhile for industrial might I'm pretty sure the USA could outproduce Europe.

So in 1900 the US was roughly on par with China today, a massive economic power with a large population base on the cusp of super power status, while Britain was kind of like an anti-USSR super power. Germany was clearly on the upper end of great power status.
 

Perfidious Albion

Beedok said:
In 1900 the Royal Navy could effectively outgun all other navies combined. They could easily project power in every corner of the globe. They had over 400 million inhabitants (and they weren't all being oppressed, India sent 1.7 million soldiers in WWI, and in WWII they produced the largest all volunteer army in history). They weren't a land power, and that's why WWI dragged on so long, but that's like the Soviets having not having an exceptional navy during the cold war.

Meanwhile for industrial might I'm pretty sure the USA could outproduce Europe.

So in 1900 the US was roughly on par with China today, a massive economic power with a large population base on the cusp of super power status, while Britain was kind of like an anti-USSR super power. Germany was clearly on the upper end of great power status.
Click to expand...

I agree in most respects (though I'd quibble on the idea that Indians weren't oppressed by the British just because they were willing to fight for the British Empire; history is full of examples of people who fought for regimes that treated them very poorly), but it's a question of how much power could be projected. I'd define a superpower as a country that can single-handedly defeat multiple great powers even on their (the great powers') own turf and far from the superpower's turf. The UK could project enough power across the world to defeat minor nations, but not to defeat, e.g., France and Austria-Hungary at the same time with its own power alone.
 

MattII

CthulhuFhtagn said:
"Superpower" as a term didn't arise until the Cold War, because there was no other way to describe the incredible military, economic, and cultural advantage that 2 countries (the US and USSR) had over all the rest.
Click to expand...
And here's the thing, stopping the US eventually becoming a superpower is going to be very tricky.
 

CthulhuFhtagn

Banned
MattII said:
And here's the thing, stopping the US eventually becoming a superpower is going to be very tricky.
Click to expand...

It's not. "Superpower" is defined relative to other powers. Just make other countries strong enough to challenge the US, and there are no more superpowers. But with a post-1900 PoD, the US will almost definitely be one of the great powers.
 
Beedok

Beedok

Perfidious Albion said:
I agree in most respects (though I'd quibble on the idea that Indians weren't oppressed by the British just because they were willing to fight for the British Empire; history is full of examples of people who fought for regimes that treated them very poorly),
Click to expand...
They were definitely oppressed, but it was at gun point or anything with the masses waiting to rebel at the drop of a hat like some might feel.

Perfidious Albion said:
but it's a question of how much power could be projected. I'd define a superpower as a country that can single-handedly defeat multiple great powers even on their (the great powers') own turf and far from the superpower's turf. The UK could project enough power across the world to defeat minor nations, but not to defeat, e.g., France and Austria-Hungary at the same time with its own power alone.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the Soviets would have been hard pressed to overcome China and India at the same time. Britains problem was a lack of nukes.
 

CthulhuFhtagn

Banned
Beedok said:
They were definitely oppressed, but it was at gun point or anything with the masses waiting to rebel at the drop of a hat like some might feel.



I'm guessing the Soviets would have been hard pressed to overcome China and India at the same time. Britains problem was a lack of nukes.
Click to expand...

For all of its naval and economic power, Britain wasn't a superpower. It was always extremely dominant, but it wasn't able to overcome the other Great Powers on by itself. For example, in 1812, the UK couldn't have beaten Russia and Prussia on its own. In 1912, it couldn't have beaten any combination of the other great powers on its own (well, maybe an Italian-Ottoman alliance). If WWI had been Britain vs Germany & France, France and Germany would have won.

Compare that to the only modern examples of superpowers. Up until things really started going down hill in the 1980s, the USSR could have beaten China and India on its own. The USA could have beaten France, the UK, and West Germany on its own.
 

MattII

CthulhuFhtagn said:
It's not. "Superpower" is defined relative to other powers. Just make other countries strong enough to challenge the US, and there are no more superpowers. But with a post-1900 PoD, the US will almost definitely be one of the great powers.
Click to expand...
There are basically three real candidates there, Russia, China and India, each of which has its own problems. Take a look at a map some day CONUS (ie, not including Alaska or Hawaii) is just shy of 3 million square miles, that's near on twice as much as the whole EU, and even once you add in Greenland, it still doesn't get too close.
 
Last edited:

CthulhuFhtagn

Banned
MattII said:
There are basically three real candidates there, Russia, China and India, each of which has its own problems.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of candidates for a multipolar world with a post-1900 PoD.

Let's assume that this is a scenario where WWI never happens, and Japan backs off in China.

1. USA (Population 300 mil , GDP $16 trillion)
2. China (Population 1,100 mil , GDP $14 trillion)
3. Russia (Population 400 mil, GDP $12 trillion)
4. British Empire w/ White Dominions (Population 250 mil, GDP $10 trillion)
5. India (Population 1,000 mil, GDP $8 trillion)
6. Japanese Empire (Population 160 mil, GDP $5 trillion)
7. Germany, Indonesia, or Brazil (Population 110-240 mil, GDP $3-5 trillion)

Even in OTL, we will likely be in a "no superpower" world in about 50 years or so:
1. China
2. USA
3. India
4. "Inner Six" EU
5. Brazil
 

MattII

And again, we come back to the issue of defining the meaning of the term 'superpower'. Yes it got used for the US, but it also got used for the USSR, so a world with several more-or-less equal first nations is not automatically without superpowers. To ensure no superpowers you have to balkanise the US, and make is so that all three of China, Russia and India (once it gains independence) remain relatively unindustrialised.
 
Beedok

Beedok

CthulhuFhtagn said:
For all of its naval and economic power, Britain wasn't a superpower. It was always extremely dominant, but it wasn't able to overcome the other Great Powers on by itself. For example, in 1812, the UK couldn't have beaten Russia and Prussia on its own. In 1912, it couldn't have beaten any combination of the other great powers on its own (well, maybe an Italian-Ottoman alliance). If WWI had been Britain vs Germany & France, France and Germany would have won.

Compare that to the only modern examples of superpowers. Up until things really started going down hill in the 1980s, the USSR could have beaten China and India on its own. The USA could have beaten France, the UK, and West Germany on its own.
Click to expand...

In 1812 Britain had just funded the war of Europe vs. France as well as fighting a war on another continent. Also, I would say that Britain was a defensive superpower. They might not have been able to destroy France or Prussia or something on their own, but they could have defended themselves from pretty well every great power throughout the 19th and early 20th century. The USA and USSR could have destroyed their enemies, but they'd have been gutted too. China and India would have decimated the USSR with hundreds of warheads killing millions of Soviet citizens, and the USA would have suffered just as badly from the Anglo-French nuclear assault. The late 20th century has seen an advantage to the offensive front, the 19th century supported the defensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top