Smoke and Daggers: a multipolar cold war

[Strategos' Risk]

What if they threw a war, and everybody came? - Keldon Warlord, Fifth edition

Preface: This is my attempt at finally merging a Kalterkrieg- a silent staring match between democracy and fascism after the ashes of World War II gone worse- with a multipolar cold war. But unlike a straight-up three-way Allies vs. Axis vs. Comintern slugfest, this attempts to create a scenario where there are as many sides as possible, not all equally matched, all playing a great game of subversion. Unfortunately, this is not an ambitious venture- I have no intention of writing a faux historical textbook. Just a timeline, and maybe some detailed coverage of a few regions. This timeline is all about research of previous ideas, picking some of the best ones, and mashing it all together to create a scenario with as many sides as possible. This is very ASB territory. Not quite Stirling level, but perhaps Turtledove. A lot of handwaving. Also, military history is not my strong suit, so I'm just going to gloss over many things. Any and all help is graciously accepted.

Synopsis: Everyone gets assassins, spies, and saboteurs!

[Strategos' Risk]

Okay, I've slightly lost the nerve to continue this, especially in the face of no responses and lack of interest. How about I skip to the punchline:

What if there was a kalterkrieg involving: formerly isolationist U.S. vs. Third Reich vs. Soviet Union vs. East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere vs. remnant British Empire allied to remnant Free French vs. anarcho-syndicalist India vs. Integralist non-racist fascist Brazil, with China either divided or Maoist? Would someone read this scenario?

[Wolfpaw]

Yes.

Yes.

A Thousand Times Yes!!!

[imperialaquila]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

Yes.

Yes.

A Thousand Times Yes!!!

Seconded.

Get writing! It sounds awesome.

[David Floyd]

I wonder who would hold or dominate the Middle East in this type of world? I can only come up with two candidates - the Soviet Union and Great Britain.

[Gwendolyn Ingolfsson]

Cthulhu be praised (PBUH), this sounds like that map of Hell I've been putting together for lo these past few months! It's got Orwell's Oceania, a victorious Axis Europe, Latveria, the Domination and a lot of other hella wicked craziness. Are you planning on using existing works of fiction like that, or do you want it to be more plausible? Either way, Tres fun!

[xchen08]

The Co-prosperity sphere is going to be a bitch to get without getting into a war with the U.S. that ends with Japan crushed.

[imperialaquila]

Originally Posted by xchen08

The Co-prosperity sphere is going to be a bitch to get without getting into a war with the U.S. that ends with Japan crushed.

Maybe replace the Co-Prosperity Sphere with a Nationalist China? They'd probably be one of the weaker major powers, probably friendly with the Nazis and the US (no former imperialist baggage in the relationship).

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Originally Posted by imperialaquila

Maybe replace the Co-Prosperity Sphere with a Nationalist China? They'd probably be one of the weaker major powers, probably friendly with the Nazis and the US (no former imperialist baggage in the relationship).

More likely they'll stick closer to the USSR as in OTL. Despite being called Nationalist and fighting a communist faction, they were a bit socialist and got quite a lot of support from Russia.

[imperialaquila]

Originally Posted by Hresvelgr

More likely they'll stick closer to the USSR as in OTL. Despite being called Nationalist and fighting a communist faction, they were a bit socialist and got quite a lot of support from Russia.

Eh? The Nationalists weren't anything resembling socialist. If anything, they were fascist more than socialist. Cult of personality around one leader, secret police, support from business groups, nationalist/far-right rhetoric, etc. Granted, the first two are generic totalitarian regimes, but the Nationalists definitely weren't socialist. They had a somewhat strange theory of government, but that's off-topic.

They got quite a lot support from the USSR because Stalin didn't want to piss off the US by supporting a resistance group against a nominal ally. So they gave aid to the Nationalists.

OTL, there was quite a bit of Nationalist China-Nazi Germany cooperation. This was largely because the Nationalists were (officially) rabidly anti-imperialist and the Nazis, due to the restrictions of the Versailles treaty, couldn't try to dominate China like the rest of the European powers. The Nazis supported Japan over China OTL because the Japanese were much more powerful than China. There's where the China-Germany friendliness could come from.

The US is a bit more iffy, but I thought that the Nationalists would prefer to be friendly with the US, who had no history of imperialism in China, than Britain or Russia, which did. Also, if we are assuming that the US has dismantled Japan in some kind of Pacific War, then it would be safe to assume that the Chinese would want to cozy up to the obvious dominant power of the Pacific.

Come to think of it, the Chinese would probably be friendly with India as well; both are anti-imperialist and (officially) revolutionary states, so it makes some sense.

The Middle East and Africa are going to be the main battlegrounds of this new Cold War. If you want to have Brazil as a major power, South America will be a battleground as well. I doubt that Brazil will be anywhere near as powerful as the US, but if the Brazilians are fascist, then they could get support from the Axis, which could even the odds somewhat.

[Strategos' Risk]

Are there any other possible blocs?

China is basically weak but getting its act together- I'm still not sure if they are Maoist, Nationalist, or even imperial (though having a dynasty return post-1939 seems unlikely, even by this timeline). Japan has Manchukuo and is turning it into their version of the British Raj.

As far as Brazil goes, basically the paranoid isolationist U.S. realized after WWII that with the fall of the European liberal democracies it was virtually the only opponent to international fascism and communism. Too busy, it outsourced the job of seeking out and destroying unwanted foreign influence in South America to Brazil, flooding them with aid. Under the Estado Novo, Integralism blossomed into a populist, semi-revolutionary anti-racist form of authoritarian corporatism- a fascism for the Global South. Surprisingly not very anti-Yanqui, though, more apathetic and a co-belligerent against non-American influence. As with all alliances between these massive blocs, the friendship is strained and temporary- in the latter years, Brazil has been talking with its Catholic cousins in the Reich bloc- Franco, and Mussolini's heirs. Amusingly, Portugal is in the Brazilian bloc already.

[Bavarian Raven]

i like where this be heading, but we need a map

[Spitfiremk1]

Originally Posted by Strategos' Risk

Are there any other possible blocs?

Here's some ideas::

- Superpower/Surviving British Empire/Commonwealth. Maybe an Angloshpere bloc.

- Or, if you don't like that, US led bloc.

- French Led European Union.

- Nationalist China.

- Some sort of bloc based on South America (Brazil, Argentina?)

- Some sort of Far Right/Nationalist/Apartheid bloc led by South Africa, Franco's Spain, Estado Novo Portugal etc.

- Communist/Socialist Bloc or variations there/off (i.e, Stalinism vs Trotskyism).

- A Bhagdad Pact x 10 in the Middle East.

- Scandinavian Bloc.

etc.

Probably most of these are ASB, but there you go.

[backstab]

Here is something that I found a while back that I'm using in my own Nazi-Victory/Stalemate Scenario.

Ribbentrop was a big fan of a united Europe under German leadership.

Subject: European Confederation
I am of the opinion that, as already proposed to the Führer in my previous minutes, we should at the earliest possible date, as soon as we have scored a significant military success, proclaim the European Confederation in quite a specific form.
As a foundation ceremony I would envisage inviting all the Heads of State concerned, together with their Governments, to a safe meeting-place such as Salzburg or Vienna, where they would solemnly sign the instrument bringing the Confederation into being.
The States immediately concerned would be Germany, Italy, France, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia, Greece and Spain (?). If the Führer should intend to create independent states in the parts of Europe occupied by us, these would be added to the list.
In my opinion only a specific measure of this kind would produce the success we are aiming at.
The establishment of a European confederation would have the following political advantages:

1. It would dispel the fear of our friends and allies that they might all be placed under German Gauleiters as soon as peace is concluded.
2. Neutrals would be reassured that they would not be incorporated into Germany at the end of the war.
3. Italy would be relieved of their fear that powerful Germany might wish to drive her into a corner.
4. If the Führer decides to set up a number of more or less independent states in certain occupied territories, which of course would remain completely in our power, it would come as a considerable reassurance to those territories and induce them to muster their forces to help us in the war.
5. It would give the Russians the impression that all Europe was against them, and thus weaken their fighting spirit.
6. It would tend to disarm the fighting spirit of the British and Americans if they found that they were not liberating European states but attacking a Europe which stood solidly against them.
7. It would have a weakening effect internally in both Britain and America. As regards America it would be a severe blow to Roosevelt. In both countries, especially America, it would destroy the best arguments of anti-German propaganda. Opposition groups would, for instance, be able to say: ‘We cannot forbid Europe to do what America herself did, namely to form a union of states.’
8. In France and the occupied territories in general it would make all the difference to these countries’ war effort in the personal and material spheres. This would especially be so in the case of French labor and the armaments industry.
9. As regards France I have particularly in mind, and have discussed this with Himmler, that with the clear watchword of Europe to help us we might recruit from the Germanic part of the population one of two first-class SS divisions which could be thrown into the battle on our side. All the details of this have been thought out and I shall in the next few days be again discussing them thoroughly with Himmler. Without the European watchword this recruiting would have no success.
10. Several neutrals such as Sweden, Turkey, Portugal etc. would be deterred from too close relations with Britain and America. Turkey’s efforts to create a Balkan Pact, with England behind it of course, would not (sic) be foiled by the creation of a European Confederation.
11. I shall submit to the Führer a first outline draft of the Act of Confederation. I believe that the establishment of the Confederation at the right moment will have such profound effects that our enemies will to all intents and purposes be robbed of their principal war aim for propaganda purpose in future. I also believe that given the great divergences which are already visible between England, America and Russia, and which will one day assume huge proportions, the enemy coalition will simply dissolve when it is brought up against a united Europe of this kind.
12. The effort on the fighting in Tunis is also especially important, as I am convinced that when this Confederation is founded with marshal Pétain as a signatory, General Giraud will find it hard to go on mobilizing Frenchmen to fight against us.

The question of territorial frontiers between the different states should not be dealt with in connection with the Act of Confederation, but must clearly wait until the final peace settlement.
Other specific questions connected with the European Confederation may involve difficulties of one kind or another, e.g. the question of the presidency etc., but all this will give no trouble if the Führer agrees with the project in principle.
I would recommend with the most emphasis that this measure be adopted. If we take care to fill all the relevant posts, e.g. in new political entities, with suitably ruthless people who can make a show of flexibility while in fact not compromising on the true political end, the creation of such a Confederation will not prejudice anything, but will make it certain that the Greater Germanic Reich will come into being at the end of the war.
I am absolutely convinced that if we use the right tactics a great deal of German blood can be spared.
I would also suggest that this matter be discussed with the Duce at Salzburg.

Annex
Foundation of the European Confederation

The Governments of the German Reich, Italy, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Croatia and Spain have resolved to form a European Confederation.
For this purpose the Heads of State of …..and the Heads of Government of ….. have met at ….. on …..The instrument establishing the European Confederation, which was signed by the plenipotentiaries of the above-mentioned European Governments, includes the following provisions.

1. In order to give tangible expression to the common destiny of European peoples and to ensure that wars never again break out among them, the States here represented have for all time established a European Confederation.
2. The members of the Confederation are sovereign states and guarantee one another’s freedom and political independence. The organization of their internal affairs is a matter for the sovereign decision of each of them.
3. The member nations of the Confederation will jointly defend the interests of Europe in every direction and protect the European continent against external enemies.
4. The States of the Confederation will conclude an alliance for the defense of Europe, the plans for which will be drawn up in due course.
5. The European economy will be organized by the member States on the basis of a uniform plan arrived at by mutual agreement. Customs barriers among them will be progressively abolished.
6. While preserving their national character, the States united in the Confederation will conduct intensive cultural exchanges with one another.
7. The European States which are not founder members of the Confederation are solemnly invited to join it.
8. All details of the organization of the European Confederation shall be laid down in a Confederal Act, which will form the subject of consultation after the war by all the Governments concerned.

Link : http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/b...ederation.html


And now my map of the European Confederation ......

[mailinutile2]

is southern europe (albania/greece) meant to be italian puppet?
No italian libya? what about somalia/ethiopia?

[backstab]

In my Time Line while Germany is strong enough to hold europe , anything outside was annexed by the British and Free French.

[Honolulu]

Originally Posted by Spitfiremk1

Here's some ideas::

- Superpower/Surviving British Empire/Commonwealth. Maybe an Angloshpere bloc.

- Or, if you don't like that, US led bloc.

- French Led European Union.

- Nationalist China.

- Some sort of bloc based on South America (Brazil, Argentina?)

- Some sort of Far Right/Nationalist/Apartheid bloc led by South Africa, Franco's Spain, Estado Novo Portugal etc.

- Communist/Socialist Bloc or variations there/off (i.e, Stalinism vs Trotskyism).

- A Bhagdad Pact x 10 in the Middle East.

- Scandinavian Bloc.

etc.

Probably most of these are ASB, but there you go.

My suggested blocs:

Democratic Advancement Coalition
(Eire, Ulster, Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland, Republic of Wales, Republic of America, Free Franco-Andorran Republic),

Alliance for Justice
(Nationalist China, Vichy France, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Peronist Chile, Integralist Brazil, Austerist Uruguay, Rexist Belgium, Monarchist Albania, Arrow Cross Hungary, Showa Nationalist Japan, Afrikaner South Africa)

Comintern
(USSR, Juche Korea, Peoples Republic of Formosa)

Africa, The Mid-East, and all other unmentioned territories are Fair Game.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by imperialaquila

Eh? The Nationalists weren't anything resembling socialist. If anything, they were fascist more than socialist. Cult of personality around one leader, secret police, support from business groups, nationalist/far-right rhetoric, etc. Granted, the first two are generic totalitarian regimes, but the Nationalists definitely weren't socialist. They had a somewhat strange theory of government, but that's off-topic.

The Nationalists pursued industrialization via a series of multiyear plans using state industry. So...

[Strategos' Risk]

Given the superpowers/blocs I've listed already in the first reply of this thread, would it be unlikely to have:

1. An African superpower

2. Some sort of bloc of North African/Middle Eastern Arab Socialists.

3. and/or some other bloc?

[mailinutile2]

Originally Posted by Honolulu

Democratic Advancement Coalition
(Eire, Ulster, Kingdom of England),

...

Alliance for Justice
(Nationalist China, Vichy France, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Peronist Chile, Integralist Brazil, Austerist Uruguay, Rexist Belgium, Monarchist Albania, Arrow Cross Hungary, Showa Nationalist Japan, Afrikaner South Africa)

1) Eire and Ulster on the same side?
2) Isolationist USA is one thing, total wreck of Monroe doctrin is another.
a (little) bit of south america could go fascist but its main bulk is either pro-US or strictly neutral
3) After the war, the Reich an Nippon have noreasons to keep together: i suggest asian co-prosperity sphere as a different entity from the steel pact