A Euro-American Cold War?

[The Federalist]

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 )

First of all, I wouldn't say that "totalitarian ideologies" were widespread in America in the 20's-30's. But why doesn't the US turn fascist?

1. Things happen differently in America. America doesn't turn to Fascism as a solution to the Depression,there is instead the New Deal (which I'm thinking of making more socialistic to possibly heighten the ideological contrast between America and Europe), there are no Communist revolutionaries wreaking havoc in American cities (US Communists aren't too receptive to Trotsky's call for world revolution), and there is no war against the Soviet Union. There is instead a war against Imperial Japan, who like Nazi Germany, also happens to be racist, totalitarian and in favor of eugenics. American troops in China means more exposure to racially motivated Japanese atrocities against the Chinese like the Rape of Nanking, etc.

2. As the Cold War with Europe heats up more and more, a similar thing happens with Americans turning to the Europeans' racism, eugenics and use of apartheid with increasing disgust and realizing their own wrongs in race relations, leading to a much earlier Civil Rights movements in the 50's, with pro-Civil Rights politicians asking "What are we? Europeans?"

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.

Great idea for Russia. I see the ME as being European dominated the only American ally being Iran, same goes for Africa with the only American ally being Liberia.

 

[fhaessig]

First of all, I wouldn't say that "totalitarian ideologies" were widespread in America in the 20's-30's. But why doesn't the US turn fascist?

1. Things happen differently in America.

I think you are not looking at all that was going on in USA in that era. For exemple, it had the most advanced eugenics program in the world. For other things, look up Lindbergh, KKK and Jim crow, Macarthy, Bonus army... etc

And New Deal was exactly the same methods used by the fascists to fight the depression through big projects and public work spendings. ( the big difference was that fascists encouraged big business monopolies and USA broke them down; though both were down on unions )

 

[The Federalist]

I think you are not looking at all that was going on in USA in that era. For exemple, it had the most advanced eugenics program in the world. For other things, look up Lindbergh, KKK and Jim crow, Macarthy, Bonus army... etc

I am familiar with the things you have brought up but I guess we just have different definitions of "widespread". I am also tinkering with the idea of making the New Deal resemble socialism and Stalin's Five Year Plans rather than Mussolini's Fascist Program although its still a tentative prospect for the TL.

Though again, these fascist, totalitarian elements of American society remain in the fringe, they do not grow and are never solidified by ATL Europe's experiences with first, domestic Communist terrorists in the 30's and then, a full-fledge Soviet invasion in the 40's.

And the Eugenics program is finally abandoned after America goes up against racist Europe in the Cold War as well as because of more opportunities for the idea of civil rights and racial equality to develop in America.

And New Deal was exactly the same methods used by the fascists to fight the depression through big projects and public work spendings. ( the big difference was that fascists encouraged big business monopolies and USA broke them down; though both were down on unions )

I understand the similarities between the New Deal and the Fascist economic programs in Europe but the main difference between America and Europe here is that although America may embrace the economic aspects of fascism or this "quasi-fascism", they stay away from its political aspects, unlike in Europe, where the economic promise of Fascism can only be realized if it is embraced entirely along with its corresponding political, social and ideological aspects.

 

[The Federalist]

BUMP!!!!! Any more thoughts or ideas?

 

[Varangian]

A Adrien Arcand lead Canada may be a intersting byproduct of a Far-right Europe and the status of Canada in general would be interesting, I dont think that a far right Europe would abandon Canada to 'the American dogs' but who knows,what happens with Greenland would also be a interesting topic.

 

[The Federalist]

A Adrien Arcand lead Canada may be a intersting byproduct of a Far-right Europe and the status of Canada in general would be interesting, I dont think that a far right Europe would abandon Canada to 'the American dogs' but who knows,what happens with Greenland would also be a interesting topic.

I looked him up and he is apparently from Montreal. I imagine Quebec to be the center of all pro-European activity in Canada and Arcand could be the province's premier. He could turn the province into a mini Fascist-Integralist France.

He has to have a rival in Canadian politics. Who could this be? The one on the other side of the political spectrum and who would be representing pro-Americanism in Canada? Tommy Douglas? He was a prominent socialist and America leans heavily to the left ITTL.

 

[Archangel]

On the US side of TTL, it might be useful something that weakens the conservative coalition like having Southern Democrats moving from conservativism to populism, New Deal Democrats staying strong, and in the Republican Party, the liberal wing gaining strong control over the conservative wing.

 

[Ferto]

I don't know. I think the USA needed Europe way to much economically. They couldn't afford to lose Europe as a trade partner, especially when Russia is bombed to the ground. They would never let that happen. Especially when Russia is already unavailable.

 

[The Federalist]

I don't know. I think the USA needed Europe way to much economically. They couldn't afford to lose Europe as a trade partner, especially when Russia is bombed to the ground. They would never let that happen. Especially when Russia is already unavailable.

There is still trade between the US and Europe but the political conditions prevent for the same level of OTL trade to exist. The thing here is that if the US wants to access the markets of Africa and parts of Asia, they must do it through Europe, hence one of the reasons why they support the colonial independence movements, to open those markets and resources up to America. And I'm thinking of dividing Russia into East/West as had been suggested earlier.

Also, America has free access to China's markets ITTL which is something they didn't have IOTL. There also exists an American economic domination of South America and much of East Asia.

 

[Faeelin]

And New Deal was exactly the same methods used by the fascists to fight the depression through big projects and public work spendings. ( the big difference was that fascists encouraged big business monopolies and USA broke them down; though both were down on unions )

Sorry, but this shows a grave misunderstanding of American politics. Unless you think that the Croix de Feu were also a fascist group?

 

[Faeelin]

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.

The problem is that big business in America favored free trade, and there was a pretty big opposition in Germany, by the mid 1930s, to the autarky. And Scandinavia and the Benelux, while small individually, collectively are nothing to sneeze at, and also supported free trade.

I'm not saying it's inevitable, I just don't think it's as unlikely as you're implying.

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.

Oh, you'd be surprised. The Kuomintang were very big on foreign investment in China, so long as it was foreign investment in a sovereign China.