A Euro-American Cold War?

The Federalist

I’ve had this idea in my head for the longest time now and I’m planning to eventually write a TL about it.

The basic premise is that of a Cold War between the USA and Europe, not Soviet Europe or Nazi Europe or CP Victory Europe, but just… Europe.

There are several POD’s to this… 1). Hitler and the Nazis never come to power in Germany 2). The Red Army takes Warsaw but never manages to cross into Germany 3). The Hungarian Revolution succeeds 4). The Reds win the Finnish Civil War 5). The Greeks manage to conquer Constantinople and western portions of Anatolia, leaving a rump Republic of Turkey

These conditions lead to a much powerful USSR that replaces Nazi Germany as the prime aggressor in a WW2-type scenario, which happens when the Soviets steamroll into Western Europe sometime in the early 40’s. The European nations band together (without help from the US) and eventually beat back the Soviets (who reach as far as France) to Russia’s borders and at that point, instead of launching an impossible invasion of the huge country, Europe’s leaders decide to bomb Russia into submission with the new atomic weapons. Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad and several other cities are destroyed and Russia signs its surrender. Russia, under a new post-Soviet remnant regime, closes its borders and becomes a N. Korea-like state.

Meanwhile in the Pacific, Japan discovers Manchurian oil and without the need for SE Asia’s resources, they are able to focus on their main goal of taking over China. Random butterflies lead to this being a different more leftwing China where the anti-Communist purges never happen and the Reds are pretty integrated with the KMT. America decides to intervene after an “incident” in the South China Sea and sends troops to fight mainly in China, then in a bloody invasion of Japan. America and China are finally able to declare victory over Japan, securing peace in the Pacific.

The postwar situation sees the emergence of two power blocs, Europe and America. The two blocs get into a Cold War mainly over the issue of decolonization, with the Americans supporting armed colonial liberation movements throughout European colonies in Africa and Asia while the Europeans struggle to hold on to their crumbling empires in vicious colonial conflicts like Algeria, Mozambique and Indochina. I imagine America turning to the left while Europe to the right (becoming very reactionary, authoritarian and dictatorial), with leaders such as Winston Churchill and Oswald Mosley in the UK, Charles de Gaulle in France, Lettow-Vorbeck in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal, etc. The two blocs are also engaged in a fierce nuclear arms and space race.

Here are a few links where the idea developed, my first mention of a Euro-American Cold War in the second link:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=60315
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=85530
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=2174759&postcount=2

As to why the Americans would support the armed colonial liberation movements, Jape and Dean the Young offer very good explanations from previous threads.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=1539877&postcount=6
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=1539894&postcount=7

Any comments or ideas to add?
 
Last edited:

David bar Elias

Hamburger said:
Any comments or ideas to add?
Click to expand...

I did a map on page 117 of the Map Thread of a world inspired by both your idea and The Grasshopper Lies Heavy.

Basically, it's of the world in 1964; the U.S.-Chinese led United Nations is facing off against the British/Dominions/European League of Nations for domination of the globe. It could potentially work for your TL as well.
 
Last edited:

The Federalist

David bar Elias said:
I did a map on page 117 of the Map Thread of a world inspired by both your idea and The Grasshopper Lies Heavy.

Basically, it's of the world in 1964; the U.S.-Chinese led United Nations is facing off against the British/Dominions/European League of Nations for domination of the globe. It could potentially work for your TL as well.
Click to expand...

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=2227303&postcount=2323

Nice! I hadn't thought about Canada yet but your map offers a great niche for it in such a world.
 

Archangel

There would be internal clashes between Churchill, De Gaulle, Lettow-Vorbeck and Mosley, Mussolini and Franco (and possibly even Salazar), given their very different political views.
 

CanadianGoose

Banned
Hamburger said:
I’ve had this idea in my head for the longest time now and I’m planning to eventually write a TL about it.

The basic premise is that of a Cold War between the USA and Europe, not Soviet Europe or Nazi Europe or CP Victory Europe, but just… Europe.
Click to expand...
I don't see this *Cold War as likely (OTL event were spawned by forced co-existence of two system which mutually considered mere being of "other" system as the ultimate danger but could not do anything out of fear of mutual annihilation), but very rigid competition between USA and EU could very well be future history.
 

Seryozha1987

Quick question for the TL:

So is your China KMT-led with Communists therein, or is it basically a two-party state between the Communists and the KMT? Either one of those setups is pretty volatile without a common ideological enemy. It's not impossible to get them to work together, but considering the people in charge of the parties (both being alive well into the 60's), I have a hard time seeing that stay together after victory over Japan.

Also, why would Europe develop such animosity towards the US that there would suddenly be a this idea of a Cold War? Anti-colonialism isn't enough, as even without the US or USSR helping, a lot of anti-colonial movements were wildly successful. France's insistence on maintaining their colonial possessions came to a head in the 1960's over Algeria and a near death experience for the Republic. Now, I'll admit that without a strong USSR or Communist China to inspire the anti-colonial movements, it'll take longer and possibly be much bloodier than IOTL. But I don't see Africa without self-rule too late into the second half of the 20th century.

And just a question for David, why is Ethiopia a member of the MEDC? Ethiopia is predominantly Catholic and isn't exactly on the best of terms with a lot of her neighbors. Ethiopia doesn't even consider itself in the Middle East, and the Middle East certainly doesn't consider Ethiopia in there. Most anthropologists even keep the whole Horn of Africa separate. Just confused is all. I know that map is based on a book that I've never read, so for all I know the author put Ethiopia with the MEDC.
 

The Federalist

Archangel said:
There would be internal clashes between Churchill, De Gaulle, Lettow-Vorbeck and Mosley, Mussolini and Franco (and possibly even Salazar), given their very different political views.
Click to expand...

What do you mean? There are going to be minor clashes in regards to foreign policy and EU affairs but generally, they are united in their goal of preserving European colonial power and opposing America. Their differences in domestic policy and things like that won't really be a problem. I mean sure they have different political views but they aren't the joint rulers of a unified European superstate, they've got their own countries to run. I mean if Churchill believes in democracy and Mussolini believes in Fascism then let Britain remain a democratic country and let Italy remain a Fascist one.

Seryozha1987 said:
Quick question for the TL:

So is your China KMT-led with Communists therein, or is it basically a two-party state between the Communists and the KMT? Either one of those setups is pretty volatile without a common ideological enemy. It's not impossible to get them to work together, but considering the people in charge of the parties (both being alive well into the 60's), I have a hard time seeing that stay together after victory over Japan.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure of the specifics of what will happen to China but a very left wing KMT-led, one-party state is what I'm aiming for. ITTL, I have Wang Jingwei ousting Chiang at some point. The Communists are also never purged so there are a large number of them in the KMT. And the ideological enemy is Europe.

Also, why would Europe develop such animosity towards the US that there would suddenly be a this idea of a Cold War?
Click to expand...
The answer to this question seems long and complicated and as I am short on time right now, I'll have to type it later. But just look back to the explanations of Jape and Dean the Young on the OP.
 

Archangel

Hamburger said:
What do you mean? There are going to be minor clashes in regards to foreign policy and EU affairs but generally, they are united in their goal of preserving European colonial power and opposing America. Their differences in domestic policy and things like that won't really be a problem. I mean sure they have different political views but they aren't the joint rulers of a unified European superstate, they've got their own countries to run. I mean if Churchill believes in democracy and Mussolini believes in Fascism then let Britain remain a democratic country and let Italy remain a Fascist one.
Click to expand...
In that case, TTL's Europe is a military/economic bloc, like a mix between NATO and a free trade zone.
I would suggest that this block would promote a more active colonization (with more settlers) to counter liberation movements.
 

David bar Elias

Seryozha1987 said:
And just a question for David, why is Ethiopia a member of the MEDC? Ethiopia is predominantly Catholic and isn't exactly on the best of terms with a lot of her neighbors. Ethiopia doesn't even consider itself in the Middle East, and the Middle East certainly doesn't consider Ethiopia in there. Most anthropologists even keep the whole Horn of Africa separate. Just confused is all. I know that map is based on a book that I've never read, so for all I know the author put Ethiopia with the MEDC.
Click to expand...

A poor, hastily made mistake on my part. Ethiopia should be marked as a British protectorate. :eek:
 

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan

I am very interested by this, but "Cold War" is a very specific scenario where two countris with opposite ideologies hated each other and sought to destroy the other. I don't think it is as applicable to this scenario. I think there has to be more dislike between the EU and the US; perhaps former US allies against Japan(Thailand, Burma, others) and re-colonized by the Europeans?
 
Jape

Jape

Seryozha1987 said:
Anti-colonialism isn't enough.
Click to expand...

:cool: You serious?

100 of millions of people fighting - be it through guerilla war or protest - for their independence isn't a major issue? I know Africa is basically sat on by Eurocentric historians but for crying out loud, with no Cold War based on ideology this issue becomes numero uno and oddly enough its a pretty big one.

An isolationist USA (well, one that didn' develop superpower status in WWII) will be focused on economics over direct geopolitical power. This drove (and certainly still drives) US foreign policy in the Americas, by the 1940s, American companies are already inching into Saudi oilfields and plenty of other places in Africa and Asia. Faced with a more protectionist Europe in charge of closed colonial markets it fufils both financial and moral imperatives to back nationalist movements and continue America's role as the beacon of freedom(TM) it has held almost two centuries.

I'm doubting nuclear war will a threat but trade wars, coups, US backed guerillas now and then, maybe even European backed guerillas in Latin America in response, are possibly on the cards.

The Cold War was a very unique event and as modern politics is showing, Europe is not a natural ally of the USA in real terms, bonds of liberal democracy are there but it doesn't stop them clashing and in this TL that a far less strong bond.

Also mentioning Algeria, it wasn't in a vacuum, the French won the war but by the early 1960s there was no stomach for Empire, caused by events like the Indochinese War. Communism had a major effect on this, without Soviet aide, a lot of nationalist movements are crippled - this is were US intervention comes in.
 

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan

Jape said:
:cool: You serious?

100 of millions of people fighting - be it through guerilla war or protest - for their independence isn't a major issue? I know Africa is basically sat on by Eurocentric historians but for crying out loud, with no Cold War based on ideology this issue becomes numero uno and oddly enough its a pretty big one.

An isolationist USA (well, one that didn' develop superpower status in WWII) will be focused on economics over direct geopolitical power. This drove (and certainly still drives) US foreign policy in the Americas, by the 1940s, American companies are already inching into Saudi oilfields and plenty of other places in Africa and Asia. Faced with a more protectionist Europe in charge of closed colonial markets it fufils both financial and moral imperatives to back nationalist movements and continue America's role as the beacon of freedom(TM) it has held almost two centuries.

I'm doubting nuclear war will a threat but trade wars, coups, US backed guerillas now and then, maybe even European backed guerillas in Latin America in response, are possibly on the cards.

The Cold War was a very unique event and as modern politics is showing, Europe is not a natural ally of the USA in real terms, bonds of liberal democracy are there but it doesn't stop them clashing and in this TL that a far less strong bond.

Also mentioning Algeria, it wasn't in a vacuum, the French won the war but by the early 1960s there was no stomach for Empire, caused by events like the Indochinese War. Communism had a major effect on this, without Soviet aide, a lot of nationalist movements are crippled - this is were US intervention comes in.
Click to expand...



Post Depression world, why would there still be protectionism? In fact, that may be a problem with this TL in general. Wasn't one of the reasons for de-colonization due to the rise of free trade? What elements arise in this TL to hinder free trade, when it's mutually benefical?
 

stevep

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan said:
Post Depression world, why would there still be protectionism? In fact, that may be a problem with this TL in general. Wasn't one of the reasons for de-colonization due to the rise of free trade? What elements arise in this TL to hinder free trade, when it's mutually benefical?
Click to expand...

In the suggested TL why would there be free trade? Without Europe shattered by WWII - its bad but not as bad for Europe in TTL - the US is unlikely to favour it. Especially given how that would expose them to non-industrial imports as well. Most of the continent was traditionally protectionist and with the need to rebuild after the war with the Soviets and the opposition from the US that would very likely still be the case. Even Britain, the only major supporter of free trade before the late 40's had given up on it by this time. I could see something similar to the arguements in the EU where it is argued that a large internal market, including the colonies of the various powers, is the best solution. Not to mention I can't see China, desperate to rebuild after the conflict and to avoid continued foreign economic domination, being any less protectionist.

I can't see free trade being very likely in this world.

Steve
 

The Federalist

Aside from Jape's, Dean the Young's and stevep's excellent explanations, all I can add is that Europe and America are also ideologically opposed ITTL. Without the Nazis, ideas like fascism, Social Darwinism, anti-semitism and racism in general are never discredited and in this world's Europe become rather popular and established.

Fascism-Integralism (with many different variations in each European country) becomes really popular as it is seen as both; the only solution to the economic woes of the Depression and the only response to heightened Communist revolutionary activity (I'm thinking of having Trotsky become Soviet leader, thus more Communist activity due to his "Permanent Revolution theory")

The racism comes in when the racial theories that built Nazism in OTL, Social Darwinism, antisemtism, etc. become more widespread throughout Europe as a popular cultural reaction to the increased Communist revolutionary activiy and the increasing threat of a Soviet invasion, as Trotsky begins to threaten war because of the European regimes' harsh internal repression of domestic Communists.

These ideas are solidified when Europe fights on its own, a massive Soviet invasion of the continent. The same ideas that Nazi propaganda used in justifying the war against the Soviets IOTL, eg. "Race war, Aryans vs Slavs, Judeo-Bolshevism, saving Christian civilization, etc." are also present ITTL.

After the war, European supremacy is seen as the natural order of things. Along with this view, America comes to be viewed as a corrupted offshoot of European civilization, fallen to "Semitic and Negroid influences".

Europe emerges from the war, a ruined continent and without the Marshall Plan and American help, the Europeans import cheap "coloured" labor from their colonies to hasten reconstruction, this leads to more opportunities for racism as the nascent S. African system of apartheid is eventually adapted to deal with the increase of the "coloured" population.

Let me also reiterate that Europe's official stance on economics is; an internal market consisting of only European countries and their colonial empires.

Basically by the 50's, most European regimes have strong Fascist or Integralist influences (but Fascism is a term only confined to Italy and "Integralism" never catches on so Americans refer to this as "Imperialism" or "Europeanism"), although some countries are more fascist than others. They are nowhere near as bad as the Nazis but more like S. African apartheidists in that they are not willing to resort to genocide (The EU governments even found a Jewish state in the Crimea in the early 50's because of the Great Pogroms of the late 40's).
 
Last edited:

fhaessig

And what makes you think these ideologies are less spread out in the USA.

Racism, eugenism, totalitarian ideologies... etc were also widespread in the USA in the 20s-30s and only went down due to Nazis exemple and providing a pretext to Communist attacks.

ITTL, there will be no civil right movement and any agitation by the Negroes in the South will be put down by force. ( remember that there will not be so many black veterans, for one thing )
 

Berra

A main difference is the lack of a reasonable battlefield where the cold war can turn hot. The cold war where in large parts defined on the possibility that war breaking out in Germany. No such risk exist in a TL like that, moving a army across the Atlantic is Sealion times a hundred. This affect, among other things, weapons development, diplomacy, politics....
 

Theodoric

Perhaps the SU could be defeated by both sides, and split into two parts (Like Germany was), with Europe having the European part, and the USa the Asian part (this also means a strong US domination of that area, perhaps after USA-Japanese war). The Middle East would then be the main battleground between both ideologies.
 

fhaessig

Theodoric said:
Perhaps the SU could be defeated by both sides, and split into two parts (Like Germany was), with Europe having the European part, and the USa the Asian part (this also means a strong US domination of that area, perhaps after USA-Japanese war). The Middle East would then be the main battleground between both ideologies.
Click to expand...

Just for fun, make the river the AMour ( = Love ) river be the demarcation line between the two occupation zones, rather
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top