AHC: Best possible US international reputation by the modern day?

[wcv215]

I never said immediately I said it might take a few more months.

So if a couple hundred thousand more Chinese civilians, plus thousands of Allied POWs, plus however many Koreans, plus who knows how many Japanese civilians from ongoing fighting and subsequent mass starvation, die this is definitely going to make the US look better when it gets out they might have been able to get a surrender immediately? Kay...

Not seeing it.

As for US and Soviet objectives, they changed over time. What Stalin or Truman said or did at one point does not always reflect their objectives later.

Potsdam ended less than a WEEK before Hiroshima.

Killing a politician or starting a war in the colonies is a very different matter to taking control of the government in the home islands.

Sure, but the guy in charge of Japan was Hideki Tojo, ie an ARMY general, not navy. Saying that the Navy were in charge in the Home Islands is completely wrong. Just saying that because the coup failed it would always fail is baseless.

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

I picked on two points where i thought you realy went over the top to prove your points and that weren't toughed by others (In general you bring some valid points, f.i. about how any suspicion of communist/socialist sympathy worked many times for the US like a red rag on a bull and how that poisoned US diplomacy) , but i don't agree with many of your general conclusions)

The proposal to leave Adenauer in power in the west. A Nazi collaborator in their early years, the guy who ended denazification in the west - who openly said he prefered integration with the west to reunification and nonalignment. While demanding a rolling of the dice in the east without any quid pro quo. Before taking any steps towards nonaligned reunification. Now that is a proposal designed to be rejected.

I have heard a lot about how the Soviets couldn't be trusted - and certainly there was reason for caution and care to ensure guarantees - but the russians and most of the world felt the same way about NATO and with good reason.

Are you realy blaming Adenauer that half month in 1933 he looked if the new regime could work? I really think he paid the price for that error enough in the next 12 years. I know you're quoting the Soviet perspective here, but it seems you agree with this also heavy political view. The Soviets knew they couldn't control Adenauer, because above all he hated communism. The Soviets really exagerated the 'Nazi' past of Adenauer for their own benefit. But it was at that point almost impossible to find a politician of Adenauers age and caliber who had a cleaner past.

On Freedom (which you didn't mention), you didn't touch on civil rights/liberties and human rights. Nothing in Finland compared to the oppression and denial of basic human rights faced by African Americans in the US during the cold war or the lack of freedom and basic human rights faced by Northern Irish Catholics in the UK (who didn't get the vote till 1969).

Easy when you have no minority. Oh wait! From wikipedia:

In Finland, where Sámi children, like all Finnish children, are entitled to day care and language instruction in their own language, the Finnish government has denied funding for these rights in most of the country, including in Rovaniemi, the largest municipality in Finnish Lapland. Sámi activists have pushed for nationwide application of these basic rights.[81]

As in the other countries claiming sovereignty over Sámi lands, Sámi activists' efforts in Finland in the 20th century achieved limited government recognition of the Sámis' rights as a recognized minority, but the Finnish government has maintained its legally enforced premise that the Sámi must prove their land ownership, an idea incompatible with and antithetical to the traditional reindeer-herding Sámi way of life. This has effectively allowed the Finnish government to take without compensation, motivated by economic gain, land occupied by the Sámi for centuries.[82]

The act establishing the Finnish Sámi Parliament (Finnish: Saamelaiskäräjät) was passed on November 9, 1973. Sámi people have had very little representation in Finnish national politics. In fact, as of 2007, Janne Seurujärvi, a Finnish Centre Party representative, was the first Sámi ever to be elected to the Finnish Parliament.[90]

Finnish Lapland. The three northernmost municipalities Utsjoki, Inari and Enontekiö and part of Sodankylä are officially considered the Sámi area.
Finland ratified the 1966 U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights though several cases have been brought before the U.N. Human Rights Committee. Of those, 36 cases involved a determination of the rights of individual Sámi in Finland and Sweden. The committee decisions clarify that Sámi are members of a minority within the meaning of Article 27 and that deprivation or erosion of their rights to practice traditional activities that are an essential element of their culture do come within the scope of Article 27.[91] Finland recognized the Sámi as a "people" in 1995, but they have yet to ratify ILO Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples.

Sámi in Finland have had access to Sámi language instruction in some schools since the 1970s, and language rights were established in 1992. There are three Sámi languages spoken in Finland: North Sámi, Skolt Sámi and Inari Sámi. Of these languages, Inari Sámi, which is spoken by about 350 speakers, is the only one that is used entirely within the borders of Finland, mainly in the municipality of Inari.

This is not to defend the others* or to attack Finland in any way. For that time period there are many minor human rights flaws in countries, that later have been at least been dealt with partially. I just think your rosy image of Finland is more out of hatred towards other countries than a genuine understanding of the country and it's own problems, especialy Finlandization, a unique situatuation that did seriously limit freedom in Finland. I think you're wrong in assuming Germany (and i mean the BRD here) would have been better off in such a situation.

I don't know why but this song comes to mind :

*certainly not the US

 

[brooklyn99]

Yeah, Finland was fucking shit following the white victory in the Civil War.

Victory by Lenin's lackeys was NOT going to be the better alternative.

 

[marktaha]

Workable Goblin​

I have RL commitments, I will respond more fully later.

On not being able to measure and compare stuff like human rights and poverty, there exist organisations for the purpose of doing just that. Amnesty International on human rights for example. There are internationally standardised measures of poverty worked out by UN bodies which are generally used by academics.

Perhaps I should have been clearer that Finland was pretty awful re poverty at the start of the cold war because it had been a Nazi aligned rightwing regime and that of course it took time under the government I am arguing in favour of for things to get good. I apologise for my simplistic and imprecise framing. Taking your analysis, Finland improved a lot more under the Finnish cold war system than America did under the American cold war system pointing to the superiority of the Finnish system. The fact that exactly when they aligned with the West things started getting worse underlines this point (my Finnish academic source attributes policy change not recession as the main cause) .

I tried to compare poverty figures in 1960 (mid cold war) but couldn't find them for Finland before 1970.

I noted that your recommended paper is entitled 'the ongoing debate' which suggests that the position it takes is not an academic consensus. I googled Peter Ruggenthaler and this is the first thing that came up:

Peter Ruggenthaler

www.wilsoncenter.org

About the Wilson Center

Chartered by Congress, the Wilson Center provides nonpartisan counsel and insights on global affairs to policymakers through deep research, impartial analysis, and independent scholarship.

www.wilsoncenter.org

"The Wilson Center, chartered by Congress in 1968 as the official memorial to President Woodrow Wilson"

Living standards under Communism were poverty by western standards.

 

[marktaha]

I picked on two points where i thought you realy went over the top to prove your points and that weren't toughed by others (In general you bring some valid points, f.i. about how any suspicion of communist/socialist sympathy worked many times for the US like a red rag on a bull and how that poisoned US diplomacy) , but i don't agree with many of your general conclusions)

Are you realy blaming Adenauer that half month in 1933 he looked if the new regime could work? I really think he paid the price for that error enough in the next 12 years. I know you're quoting the Soviet perspective here, but it seems you agree with this also heavy political view. The Soviets knew they couldn't control Adenauer, because above all he hated communism. The Soviets really exagerated the 'Nazi' past of Adenauer for their own benefit. But it was at that point almost impossible to find a politician of Adenauers age and caliber who had a cleaner past.

Easy when you have no minority. Oh wait! From wikipedia:


This is not to defend the others* or to attack Finland in any way. For that time period there are many minor human rights flaws in countries, that later have been at least been dealt with partially. I just think your rosy image of Finland is more out of hatred towards other countries than a genuine understanding of the country and it's own problems, especialy Finlandization, a unique situatuation that did seriously limit freedom in Finland. I think you're wrong in assuming Germany (and i mean the BRD here) would have been better off in such a situation.

I don't know why but this song comes to mind :

*certainly not the US

Catholics could always vote in NI. Was some gerrymandering.

 

[Father Maryland]

So it wasn't because of an economic blocade that left no other option like you earlier claimed, it was a choice. Thanks for confirming.

You have a odd obsession with this being some kind of game. Its a discussion.

And to answer your questions it was both. After the Winter War Finland only had ports in the Baltic. By 1940 the Germans definitely controlled access to that. Access to the larger world was heavily cut. sthis left two trading partners. Sweden and Germany. So their only source for things like armaments and petroleum mostly became Germany. To obtain those they needed to play the German tune. Add in the fact that Germany was the only real ally option capable of counterbalancing their neighbor to the South that was

1) Much Larger
2) Much more powerful
3) Had openly just tried to conquer and annex them and had just seized a massive part of their country and ethnicly cleansed a pretty good portion of their civilian population.

So they became sort of allies with the Germans to

1) Survive
2) Retake the massive chunk of their country that had just been stolen and ethnicly cleansed.

In their position other then accepting their own annexation they felt they had to side with the Germans. It was shameful but they were desperate and no one else was capable or willing to help them.

Of the Axis/ axis allied countries they have pretty much the only case for having little other options and while they did commit some deeply shameful acts they were the least awful of the German allied Coalition.

I'm in no way arguing the Nazis weren't terrible. Just that in Finlands position I can't really see any other options besides effectively becoming reluctant German allies.

What should they have done in your view?

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

PS: your second link doesn't work either

Stalin Note paper. This deals about the sincerity question.

 

[BlazingRoman]

Nothing in Finland compared to the oppression and denial of basic human rights faced by African Americans in the US during the cold war

I'm not denying this happened, but this statement has a lot of whataboutism infused within. Couldn't help but point that out.
Just because America did it doesn't excuse other nations of it.

 

[Wesley_Lewt]

Wow a lot of responses to what I have said.

I may make some more posts in this thread responding to some of you. But I am starting a new one where I want to hear your suggestions for POD's and timelines where nuclear arms race is either avoided or significantly limited compare to OTL.

AHC: With a POD of 1945 avoid or significantly restrict the Nuclear Arms Race

This comes from another thread. I proposed a POD and scenario to achieve this and got a lot of criticism. However, no one suggested another way the nuclear arms race could have been avoided or significantly restricted. I will quote some of what I said below, but I am actually a lot more...

www.alternatehistory.com

But you know what, I would like to hear the constructive ideas of those criticising me. What I set out to do with what I said was outline a scenario which would avoid or limit the nuclear arms race. No one liked living under threat of armageddon. No one liked that. It made people afraid. And that fear made people on both sides more willing to go along with policies of confrontation, beligerance and war.

What I set out to do was create a realistic scenario where the nuclear arms race was either avoided or happened on a much smaller scale than otl with much more negotiated regulation.

So to do this the POD I picked was Nukes not being used (to be clear the POD I picked was either a delay in the nuclear program or the planes crashing I know it is not realistic to expect any American president to chose not to use them). WW2 was a very exceptional circumstance in which something like the nuking of a city is more palatable and less bad PR than under normal circumstances. I also wanted to avoid the Korean war so Nukes don't get used there.

What I also wanted was a large, powerful neutral bloc which can push for deescalation, compromise and mediation between the superpowers. This was why I talked about Finland and recommended a Finland style arrangement for Germany, negotiated from the Russian proposal - so neutrality becomes normalised. Not because I think it was perfect in every way, but because I think it was acceptable compared to most other arrangements in coldwar europe and such a situation for Germany would help normalise neutrality and nonalignment leading to deescalation of the cold war and avoiding/limiting the many hot wars that were part of it.

wcv215​

Father Maryland​

marktaha​

H.Flashman(VC)​

Workable Goblin​

 

[Wesley_Lewt]

So if a couple hundred thousand more Chinese civilians, plus thousands of Allied POWs, plus however many Koreans, plus who knows how many Japanese civilians from ongoing fighting and subsequent mass starvation, die this is definitely going to make the US look better when it gets out they might have been able to get a surrender immediately? Kay...

Not seeing it.

First I never suggested the US choose not to use nukes. I know that is implausible. I suggested either the manhattan project is delayed for some technical reason or the planes crash.

Second, you think that the deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were worth it to prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths in China. Can you not understand (even if you don't agree) the perspective that the hundreds of thousands of deaths which would result from WW2 lasting a few more months would be a lesser evil to the millions of deaths in the hot wars spawned from a 'cold war' built on the paranoia that the threat of armageddon, resulting from the nuclear arms race gave the would? (never mind the risk of the deaths that would have resulted had the missiles acutally been fired)

 

[Wesley_Lewt]

Father Maryland​

What do I think Finland should have done in WW2? What Sweden did. Do enough cooperation to avoid invasion, but try to stay neutral as best they could. How would an Axis victory have ended for Finland do you think? How would Finland in that world compare to Finland today or Finland in a world where they stayed as neutral as they could so WW2 on the european eastern front was somewhat shorter and less bloody?

 

[lukedalton]

What I also wanted was a large, powerful neutral bloc which can push for deescalation, compromise and mediation between the superpowers. This was why I talked about Finland and recommended a Finland style arrangement for Germany, negotiated from the Russian proposal - so neutrality becomes normalised. Not because I think it was perfect in every way, but because I think it was acceptable compared to most other arrangements in coldwar europe and such a situation for Germany would help normalise neutrality and nonalignment leading to deescalation of the cold war and avoiding/limiting the many hot wars that were part of it.

​

​

What you seem to not understand is that Finland was not neutral, she had simply more freedom than the other official member of the Warsaw Pact and can conduct his internal affair with reasonable autonomy (but there were a great level of selfcensoriship among other things) but she always needed to toe the Soviet line and jumped as high as possible when she think Moscow was on the verge to say jump. In case of war, the main opinion was that they will have permitted the passage of soviet troops to attack Sweden and Norway.
That was the only kind of neutrality that Moscow will have accepted from Germany after WWII

 

[Wesley_Lewt]

What you seem to not understand is that Finland was not neutral, she had simply more freedom than the other official member of the Warsaw Pact and can conduct his internal affair with reasonable autonomy (but there were a great level of selfcensoriship among other things) but she always needed to toe the Soviet line and jumped as high as possible when she think Moscow was on the verge to say jump. In case of war, the main opinion was that they will have permitted the passage of soviet troops to attack Sweden and Norway.
That was the only kind of neutrality that Moscow will have accepted from Germany after WWII

That depends how threatened Moscow feels. In a world where Nukes have not been used and the US is not pursuing a policy of nuclear intimidation and generally behaving with more good faith willingness to negotiate and compromise to secure peace Moscow would have a different agenda.

A world without this:

Plan Totality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

After all they had been through, do you really think the Russians wanted another war? They were preparing for one because they felt threatened. If they aren't being threatened with superweapons things are different. In the scenario I outlined, with Germany more neutral than finland OTL (because after all the western allies have a hand in the arrangements) Norway certainly and Sweden maybe dont join NATO.

Hopefully there isnt even a NATO (or a warsaw pact).

 

[BlazingRoman]

First I never suggested the US choose not to use nukes. I know that is implausible. I suggested either the manhattan project is delayed for some technical reason or the planes crash.

Second, you think that the deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were worth it to prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths in China. Can you not understand (even if you don't agree) the perspective that the hundreds of thousands of deaths which would result from WW2 lasting a few more months would be a lesser evil to the millions of deaths in the hot wars spawned from a 'cold war' built on the paranoia that the threat of armageddon, resulting from the nuclear arms race gave the would? (never mind the risk of the deaths that would have resulted had the missiles acutally been fired)

How exactly would not using the nukes prevent the nuclear arms race? The Cold War still would have happened regardless of whether the US dropped the bombs on Japan. Nukes were not the only reason the two sides feared each other. So, in this case, hundreds of thousands more would die in WW2 AND the millions of people would STILL die in the many proxy wars.

 

[BlazingRoman]

Not to mention, if they don't use the nukes, that means that they may not know the true horrors of what a nuclear strike can unleash... meaning they might be more likely to use them for whatever they see fit.

 

[wcv215]

Can you not understand (even if you don't agree) the perspective that the hundreds of thousands of deaths which would result from WW2 lasting a few more months would be a lesser evil to the millions of deaths in the hot wars spawned from a 'cold war' built on the paranoia that the threat of armageddon, resulting from the nuclear arms race gave the would?

I see no reason to think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki not happening would prevent the Cold War, or any of the smaller hot wars that took place. Stalin already knew about the Bomb. He encouraged the Americans to use it. The threat of Armageddon will exist REGARDLESS. That’s just the way nuclear weapons work. And while you might delay them somewhat, the weapons are too fundamentally simple to prevent by 1945. There’s a reason Fat Man wasn’t even tested.

The Cold War happened because both sides distrusted one another, for good and bad reasons, and believed that a confrontation was inevitable. It was this distrust and paranoia that caused the various proxy wars and the like. To prevent that you don’t need to stop the Manhattan Project. You need to fundamentally change the way the two sides perceived one another.

 

[Father Maryland]

What you seem to not understand is that Finland was not neutral, she had simply more freedom than the other official member of the Warsaw Pact and can conduct his internal affair with reasonable autonomy (but there were a great level of selfcensoriship among other things) but she always needed to toe the Soviet line and jumped as high as possible when she think Moscow was on the verge to say jump. In case of war, the main opinion was that they will have permitted the passage of soviet troops to attack Sweden and Norway.
That was the only kind of neutrality that Moscow will have accepted from Germany after WWII

Not to mention that "Disarmed neutrality maintained by international law" has kind of scene a massive massive blow to it's perception as a valid strategy. Namely in the form of countries that had trusted in their status as neutrals and their disarmentment and international law being conquered, occupied, beaten to holy shit and otherwise heavily discredited. WW2 proved pretty well for a while that that just wasn't a viable strategy (at least unless a combination of geography, being effectively or directly under another nations protect protection, or that last bit plus being under another nations nuclear umbrella). Norway, Yugoslavia, Belgium, Greece, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Thailand, Ethiopia, and more then a few others had in either or both WW's found that at the end of the day international treaties are pieces of paper and that ultimately their neutrality is based on force. Either the force they themselves possessed or the force of another nation that seemed willing to fight for them. And if it's the latter and that country isn't actually willing to fight for you then you're fucked.

 

[Wesley_Lewt]

BlazingRoman​

wcv215​

Without a Nuclear Arms Race the cold war is less extreme. Not saying it would be avoided entirely, but the fear of nuclear attack was used by both sides to get the public onboard with coldwar ideology. Remove this fear and the cold war is less extreme.

Nukes have been tested and military planners arent idiots. They know broad strokes what they will do and that outside WW2 it will be very bad PR.

I have started a thread on how to avoid or significantly limit nuclear arms race. I would like to hear your scenario. Surely there are ways it could at least have been less extreme?

 

[Father Maryland]

I see no reason to think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki not happening would prevent the Cold War, or any of the smaller hot wars that took place. Stalin already knew about the Bomb. He encouraged the Americans to use it. The threat of Armageddon will exist REGARDLESS. That’s just the way nuclear weapons work. And while you might delay them somewhat, the weapons are too fundamentally simple to prevent by 1945. There’s a reason Fat Man wasn’t even tested.

The Cold War happened because both sides distrusted one another, for good and bad reasons, and believed that a confrontation was inevitable. It was this distrust and paranoia that caused the various proxy wars and the like. To prevent that you don’t need to stop the Manhattan Project. You need to fundamentally change the way the two sides perceived one another.

To Prevent the Cold War you pretty much need to completely break one of the Power Blocs beforehand (Realistically the easiest way of obtaining that would be to somehow utterly break both the Soviet Union and CCP before the Cold War Starts. The sheer death toll needed to do so would probably outweigh the death toll of the OTL Cold War by a good factor). Adding another power bloc doesn't actually do much of anything to limit violence and proxy wars. Since now instead of two blocks shoveling money and guns into places they want to influence and control you've got three blocs doing so.

 

[Father Maryland]

BlazingRoman​

Without a Nuclear Arms Race the cold war is less extreme. Not saying it would be avoided entirely, but the fear of nuclear attack was used by both sides to get the public onboard with coldwar ideology. Remove this fear and the cold war is less extreme.

Nukes have been tested and military planners arent idiots. They know broad strokes what they will do and that outside WW2 it will be very bad PR.

I have started a thread on how to avoid or significantly limit nuclear arms race. I would like to hear your scenario. Surely there are ways it could at least have been less extreme.

Somehow make governments care a lot less about money? Because while developing nukes (and their delivery mechanisms) is expensive it does and did seem to allow a country to functionally spend much less of it's economy on it's military. Nations saw say a tac nuke being capable of obliterating a division and so you saw nations maintaining smaller armies then they otherwise would have felt obliged to. And besides the direct cost of the larger conventional armies (buying the gear, paying the men, training them and all that) since the conscripts aren't actually directly contributing to the economy while in active service you have a significant chunk of your prime age slot work force not contributing to the economy for years at a time.