Why never a three-sided Cold War?

You all know me with my interest in multi-factional conflicts, and this one won't require a Nazi victory in WWII...

Why wasn't there ever a U.S. vs. USSR vs. Red China cold war? It seems like after the Sino-Soviet split, the Chinese just kind of did their own thing.
 
China wasn't, at that time, in the position to be engaging in all that much foreign adventurism or nuclear brinksmanship. The Chinese economy hadn't really taken off, and the leadership wasn't as keen on bankrupting the nation to build nukes as were the Soviets.
 
Geistkampf

In my Central Powers USA timeline (that I'm constantly reworking; I'll post the finished version here eventually.), there is a triple-sided cold war, known commonly in that world as the Ghost Struggle, between the United States, the German Empire, and a superpowerful People's Socialist Republic of China. The conflict is called that because in this Germany, a spy is commonly referred to as geist, or ghost.

The maneuverings between the USA and the Reich are quite subtle, and relations are much, much better than OTL's Cold War. The conflicts are minor, and there is no real ideological conflict. Another reason is that both Germany and the United States are opposed to China.

The struggle between China and the USA and Germany is much more complex. China is the same size as she is in our world, but Mongolia, Korea (independant as one socialist nation) and Southeast and Central Asia are sattelite states who happen to be closely controlled by Beijing. Japan is constantly torn apart by civil strife, as the pro-American monarchy tries to hold down Chinese-funded Socialist revolutionaries.

China and Germany's conflict is based in Germany's colonial holdings in the region, such as New Guinea. The United States is mainly focused on funding pro-democratic rebels in Socialist-controlled regions, but it also funds anti-German colonial organizations in Asia, Africa, and even Europe itself.
 

Raymann

Banned
I don't think its even possiable. In a multipolar world, powerful nations tend to ally up rather then fact two seperate great powers. Look at European history, its filled with states with roughly equal power and EVERY TIME there is a conflict, they either ally into two opposing camps or remain neutral.

In our Cold War it was the same. China never had an intrest in opposing both the US and the SU. I'm not sure there can be a case where it is more benifical for a nation to oppose two powers then ally with one. Even if they were idologically opposed, the Nazi's showed that they would rather ally with an enemy then be surrounded, and when that failed Russia at once allied with Germany's enemies.
 

Redbeard

Banned
If we're talking OTL, China has never been even near having the power to play superpower. They may today be approaching regional great power status, but the "regional" has to be stressed, as their power hardly projects beyond their borders.

But if going into ATL I could imagine a post-WWII, where Europe isn't as clapped out (much earlier German defeat). In this TL USA, British Empire, Continental Europe (centered on France) and the Soviet Union are likely to be the quartet of global superpowers.

In some decades from now I guess OTL could involve into a very multi-polar world with USA, Europe (incl. Russia), China, Japan and India being the big five. But non-governmental forces like capital, religious/political movements and cultural/commercial gimmicks might very well be serious challengers.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
I think I’m going to organize a list of all possible three-way (or more sided) Cold Wars based on a POD in or around WWII. I’d really, really, really appreciate any evaluation of these possibilities, as well as any suggestions for other wars:

1. NATO vs. Warsaw Pact vs. Eastern Pact (China)

This is the one I was discussing in the beginning. Basically U.S. against Russia against a more potent and imperialistic China. However, I don’t know if the Chinese would do much more other than meddle more in Asia, possibly intervening in the Vietnam War, Cambodia, etc.

2. NATO vs. Warsaw Pact vs. Nonaligned Movement

I found this discussion about the Bandung Pact. Here, China fully joins the nonaligned movement, which becomes an actual power bloc rather than a movement. The only problem here is that the non-aligned movement had so many minor powers that were so different from each other- Red China, India, Indonesia, Yugoslavia, Egypt, etc.- that the organization seems to have as likely a chance to fall apart as did the Chinese Eastern Pact.

However, if the NAM does find a way to bridge their differences and form a strong military bond besides political and economic ones, it would be a truly powerful global bloc. I think unlike NATO or the Warsaw Pact, this bloc would have no desires to spread its influence, but to rather stay defensive and vigilant. It would have much of the world (and Third World), and seem awfully imposing to both Moscow and Washington. A war between itself and the USSR would be as crazy and dramatic as the time in For All Time when Yugoslavia and several of the east European satellites tried to secede from the Soviets, combined with the nuclear confrontation near the end.

3. Allies vs. Axis vs. Comintern

I’m going to start another thread for this when I get a chance. I’m writing a TL based on Turtledove’s “Ready for the Fatherland” short story.

4. Allies vs. Comintern vs. Japan

I found this ATL online, and I’m going to start a thread about it. It’s very well-written. Basically, Japan gets nuclear weapons in World War II, survives whilst Germany falls, and gets into a conflict where Mao Zedong is killed and Stalin creates a Russo-Chinese Federation.

Interesting, but I’m kind of leery of Cold Wars with Japan as a side. Sure, in this case they’re very powerful, but unlike OTL Cold War, Japan doesn’t seem to be very interested outside Asia. The Japanese militarists were fanatics, but they didn’t have much of an ideology to export besides pan-Asianism. Though they would have nukes ready, they don’t seem to be as defiant as other Cold War sides- sure the militarists were suicidally ready to fight, but I don’t think they’re willing to fight a nuclear war just for Asia.

I think in any Cold War involving a Greater Japanese Empire or Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, it’s always more regional and conventional, and more relaxed than if, say, the Allies vs. Comintern vs. Nazis fight.

5. Allies vs. Nazis vs. Japan

I got the idea for this one from an Alternate History Travel Guide entry where the U.S. becomes a technocracy, so I’m not too sure of its plausibility. Basically, the Axis wins the war because the U.S. remains isolationist, divide up Russia between them, and a three-sided Cold War emerges.

Canada was incorporated into the Technate in 1942, following the collapse of the British Empire during the Second World War. Canadian Technocrats convinced parliament that the choice was one of economic symbiosis in the Technate or total domination by a victorious Third Reich. The Combined Forces of the Technate moved into the former colonies of the Caribbean in order to integrate them into the "Total Economic Unit (TEU)," and to prevent Hitler from using them as bases. Later, Mexico and the Central American countries would be included in the "Outer Economic Sphere," but were incorporated in the TEU in 1961.
A three-way Cold War broke out in the 1950s between the Technate, the Third Reich, and the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Technate's invention of the Atomic Bomb in 1955 gave them the edge, an advantage they tried to maintain through technology and innovative military doctrine. The Third Reich attempted to maintain an armed posture capable of rapid, crippling attack, and Japan's GEACPS had sheer manpower with which to dominate. Efforts were made by the three superpowers to win control of Siberia (which ended up under Japanese control), Africa (Dominated by Germany since 1949), and Australia (neutral by the mutual agreement of the Technate and Japan). A Third World War almost broke out in 1966 when Germany and Japan attempted to send forces to Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. Land, Sea, and Air Forces of the Technate managed to thwart this rare show of Axis Cooperation just short of all-out war.

I doubt this one very much. First of all, I don’t think Japan would be able to take over much of Russia, and so would be left with a sphere of influence much smaller than the Nazis’. Second, I highly, highly doubt that Japan could remain in control over the masses of Asia for too long. Third, I doubt that the U.S. would stay isolationist while Europe, Asia, and Africa falls to the Axis.

Does anyone think this TL could work with a regular United States instead of the weird technocratic one?

Note: Allies basically means NATO, and Warsaw Pact means Comintern or USSR.

So… please comment on any of these Cold War scenarios, and include the number. Please give any suggestions on them or any other possible Cold Wars.
 
I think 3sided conflicts are doomed. The main problem is if you have real blocs and not just countries following their own agenda (like France and NATO), they have roughly the same strength, at least during the aligning period.
So with three blocs, every single one is vastly outnumbered by every coalition of the others, all players know it and anticipate moves by the others, so they arrange themselves into bipolar groupings after a short time.
 
Strategos' Risk said:
You all know me with my interest in multi-factional conflicts, and this one won't require a Nazi victory in WWII...

Why wasn't there ever a U.S. vs. USSR vs. Red China cold war? It seems like after the Sino-Soviet split, the Chinese just kind of did their own thing.
First of all, China didn't have the technology or the industry to compete in an arms race with the United States and Russia. Second of all, China didn't represent a third ideology.
 
Steffen said:
I think 3sided conflicts are doomed. The main problem is if you have real blocs and not just countries following their own agenda (like France and NATO), they have roughly the same strength, at least during the aligning period.
So with three blocs, every single one is vastly outnumbered by every coalition of the others, all players know it and anticipate moves by the others, so they arrange themselves into bipolar groupings after a short time.

True, but there are always cases where there are more than three blocs jockeying for power. But that's so insane I have no idea how that would go...

As for three blocs- maybe the sides hate each other so much, they tend to ally with each other for a short time and then betray each other, then repeat. Or, maybe one bloc just stays away from the other two, but is still nonetheless very powerful.

AMBOMB said:
First of all, China didn't have the technology or the industry to compete in an arms race with the United States and Russia. Second of all, China didn't represent a third ideology.

Well, read my third post. In the first and second scenarios, China is either allied with the non-Warsaw Pact communist/socialist states, or a part of the Nonaligned Movement which includes India, Indonesia, Egypt, and much of the Third World.

As for ideologies... if China was so similar to the Soviets, why did the Sino-Soviet split happen?
 
I think the problem with a three way cold war is seen somewhat in WW2: You could say there were three sides: The Axis, the USSR, and the Western Allies, however, the USSR and the Western Allies eventually teamed up to eliminate the Axis, and then the USSR and the West had a cold war. And before that, the USSR was allied with the Axis (Not sure if we can count Poland as "The West", however)
 
Strategos' Risk said:
True, but there are always cases where there are more than three blocs jockeying for power. But that's so insane I have no idea how that would go...

As for three blocs- maybe the sides hate each other so much, they tend to ally with each other for a short time and then betray each other, then repeat. Or, maybe one bloc just stays away from the other two, but is still nonetheless very powerful.



Well, read my third post. In the first and second scenarios, China is either allied with the non-Warsaw Pact communist/socialist states, or a part of the Nonaligned Movement which includes India, Indonesia, Egypt, and much of the Third World.

As for ideologies... if China was so similar to the Soviets, why did the Sino-Soviet split happen?

The point is that China didn't represent a third ideology that was in conflict with both democratic secular capitalism and communism. Furthermore, neither China nor any other Non-Warsaw Pact communist country nor any other Third World country had the technology and industry to build H-bombs at a pace that could come within light years of keeping up the superpowers.
 
ComradeFlyer said:
i'm a big fan of the USA vs USSR vs Anglo-Commonwealth Cold War idea.

I would say that this would the most likely three way cold war. USA stopped it nuclear research with Britain, forcing her to go it alone as she did and was able to catch up by the early 50's. With Britian left in the cold she would have looked to her Commonwealth and not Europe. With the manpower from India, she would have been able to match those of the USSR and the USA.
 
Without a total alteration of the 20th century an Anglo-Commonwealth pole is doomed to failure.

Britain cannot match what the US (and to a lesser extent the USSR) can offer Canada, Australia and basically the entire Empire. If somehow every single indepedence movement from Singapore to the Suez cannal mysteriously vanishes to be replaced with a deep sence of loyalty to the Commonwealth then you might just be able to scrape together a third power but such is impossible.
 

Neroon

Banned
The closest thing i can think of is China during the 3 Kingdoms period. After the Battle of Chi Bi until the Zima reunification there was basically a 3 way conflict. Although mostly not cold at all.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
Steffen said:
I think 3sided conflicts are doomed. The main problem is if you have real blocs and not just countries following their own agenda (like France and NATO), they have roughly the same strength, at least during the aligning period.
So with three blocs, every single one is vastly outnumbered by every coalition of the others, all players know it and anticipate moves by the others, so they arrange themselves into bipolar groupings after a short time.

This was England's strategy in the 19thc. Remain militarily more powerful than any TWO of your main rivals and you have effective global hegemony, since any coalition formed against you will likely fall apart under pressure before, (or have one party bought off) it can solidly ally three or more. This was Napoleon's mistake. He was, at times, much more powerful than England alone, but went for Empire before England was defeated, so it remained a locus of power for other nations to cluster round when he threatened them.
 
George Carty said:
Was there ever a possibility of a Capitalism vs. Communism vs. Islam Cold War?
No Muslim country had the technology or the industry to compete in an arms race.
 
Duke of Monmouth said:
I would say that this would the most likely three way cold war. USA stopped it nuclear research with Britain, forcing her to go it alone as she did and was able to catch up by the early 50's. With Britian left in the cold she would have looked to her Commonwealth and not Europe. With the manpower from India, she would have been able to match those of the USSR and the USA.
Britain was a democratic capitalist state much like the United States. There was no ideological conflict between the two.
 
Top