The Anglo/American - Nazi War

[M. A. Dickens]

Wow, so Ho Chi Minh is actually happier here than in OTL? I assume either he has better sense than to declare himself communist, or the Anglo-Americans aren't so concerned about it...

My very-limited knowledge on Uncle Ho has led me to believe that his stance was more nationalist than Communist, and that the Vietnam War was, from the North's perspective, more of a national self-determination thing ("Let's kill the Yankees who are meddling with our affairs!") rather than Freedom vs. Communism ("Those Vietnamese were Commies, and we gotta kill the evil Commies!")... I might be wrong, though.

At any rate, it has been established early on that Vietnam was firmly in the Allied camp, and the Viet Minh was a widely respected spec op force.

Hope this clears things up a bit.

Marc A

 

[pnyckqx]

Update time!

Comments encouraged.




It is estimated that roughly nine percent of Berlin’s population died between December 1958 and June of 1959 due to Whirlwind, with the figure for the Inner Reich as a whole being around five percent. Both figures are, at best, educated guesses that must be utilized with extreme caution.

Berlin was not fully evacuated until after the end of the war.

Would that include deaths such as starvation, and other diseases that the population would acquire --rickets and scurvy-- from malnutrition and the breakdown of medical infastructure?

 

[trekchu]

The Irony is that in 1958/59 OTL West Germany was enjoying the benefits of the Economic Miracle, the biggest growth period the German economy ever enjoyed. Not twenty years after the end of the war we were marching fast to become the economic motor of Europe again, and we'd even won a World Cup in 1954...

As good as this TL is, it makes me apprechiate OTL...

 

[Krakenov]

The US and the Commonwealth just took Europe to pieces, including the (it will likely later be considered) murder of 6 million+ civilians and permanent destruction of the German state using biological weaponry. Three-quarters of the population of what would later become the developed world IOTL, and was formerly one of the most developed areas of the planet both ITTL and IOTL, has been reduced to squatting amidst the rubble praying that the shooting will stop soon. That's the lucky ones. The unlucky live in Germany proper and many will starve to death before war's end; the truly unlucky are dead of anthrax. Europe is not, and CANNOT POSSIBLY become, the stable major economy we know and take utterly for granted today. It is, arguably, worse than Africa today, and its psyche even more profoundly scarred.

In Asia, there is not ONE functional nation-state north of the Himalayas. NOT ONE. China will fall into civil war the millisecond American aid is withdrawn, Russia exists only to keep Molotov alive, Japan has been reduced to near-medieval conditions, Central Asia has been raped by Germany, European Russia might as well not be there at all. The sole functioning countries to be found in Asia are to be found in what will soon be the former British Empire and possibly the Philippines.

Africa is, as IOTL, a crapsack.

There will be no peace; there will be civil wars in Asia and Africa that a more proactive UN will send American, British, Indian, and Latin American soldiers to try to end. There will be violent terrorism, guerilla warfare, armed resistance, and ethnic terror in Europe, that American, British, Indian, and Latin American troops will bear the brunt of. There will be continual and draining conflict everywhere in the world outside of the Americas, Oceania, and the few select states in Europe that have remained neutral and weathered the storm. Europe will be occupied for three generations, and there will be blood as we feared there would IOTL.

No, no one can or will challenge American-Anglo (and eventually Indian and Brazilian) supremacy over the world, but they'll set upon each other for every conceivable reason; the steps the UN takes to restore order will be shaped in the mindset of total war, and will be ultimately counterproductive. The world of the next century will be dominated by the idea that the village must be destroyed to be saved. There is no hope for a quick and easy redemption; while Americans (likely used in the sense of "Denizens of the Americas), British, and Indians will come to have much the same standard of living enjoyed by Americans, Canadians, Japanese, and Western Europeans today, they will live in a society perpetually fighting a low-grade war to maintain order over a still-broken world that heals only slowly.

I have to say that I disagree with this. While the world will certainly be a mess, I think your view is excessively pessimistic. Admittedly, there aren't many stable governments across Asia, Africa or Europe, but there are 'bright spots' of sorts. From what we've seen Latin America is far more advanced than OTL and seems firmly aligned with the Allies. Furthermore, with the practical death of Communism, there's no real major ideology/nation that can rise up in the post war world. The wars that do erupt will be as you said small scale regional conflicts, not a giant Cold War with the impending threat of nuclear holocaust hanging over everyone's head. I don't know if on the balance of facts this is necessarily a better situation, but I certainly don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be.

 

[Winston Smith]

On the other hand, Calbear's hints about the African states being 'colonial constructs' is rather worrying.

 

[altamiro]

My very-limited knowledge on Uncle Ho has led me to believe that his stance was more nationalist than Communist, and that the Vietnam War was, from the North's perspective, more of a national self-determination thing ("Let's kill the Yankees who are meddling with our affairs!") rather than Freedom vs. Communism ("Those Vietnamese were Commies, and we gotta kill the evil Commies!")... I might be wrong, though.

Even more than with Castro, with Uncle Ho it was a matter of looking for a sponsor and getting caught up in the sponsor's ideological position.

If the French were ready and able to negotiate with him in good faith (and most of the French government was ready; they didn't have a good control over their military in Indochina, though), Vietnam may have ended up as a member of "La Francophonie" with close diplomatic ties to Paris IOTL... but the French Colonial Army had their own ideas.

 

[loughery111]

I have to say that I disagree with this. While the world will certainly be a mess, I think your view is excessively pessimistic. Admittedly, there aren't many stable governments across Asia, Africa or Europe, but there are 'bright spots' of sorts. From what we've seen Latin America is far more advanced than OTL and seems firmly aligned with the Allies. Furthermore, with the practical death of Communism, there's no real major ideology/nation that can rise up in the post war world. The wars that do erupt will be as you said small scale regional conflicts, not a giant Cold War with the impending threat of nuclear holocaust hanging over everyone's head. I don't know if on the balance of facts this is necessarily a better situation, but I certainly don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be.

It's a more stable, less dangerous (in the sense of not facing massive nuclear destruction of all civilization in the Northern Hemisphere) world, but one in which the quantity of blood spilled will be significantly higher over the coming 5 decades, especially for the "West." Frankly, the whole mess will involve a minimum of five or six decades of continuous economic and military involvement on the parts of the United States, the British Commonwealth, India, and Brazil to even begin to clean up, and lives will be spent by all of them for that entire period. While living standards in Europe will eventually be brought back above where they were in 1939, there IS going to be long-ongoing violence in France and Germany in particular, especially given the hints CalBear has posted as to their treatment by occupying authorities.

As for non-UN casualties, the coming Chinese civil war looks to dwarf the Great Leap Forward, the Russians are an ongoing humanitarian disaster, Europe will be in a state of low-grade guerrilla warfare for decades, with all the deaths that entails among civilians, Africa is no better off than IOTL, and Japan is hardly able to feed itself( some of their people likely are not doing so at all.)

The only spots that are actually better off than IOTL are India and Latin America, and it's hard to tell exactly to what degree this is true. By any definition, India is still poor; the saving grace seems to be that it's firmly integrated with the West both militarily and economically, and will never adopt the Fabian Socialist policies that so crippled it IOTL. Latin America's social and economic scenes have not been covered at all, so God only knows if their increased contribution to UN efforts is translating into economic improvement at all.

All in all, different and on the whole much, much worse post-war world, leaving aside the fact that TTL's WWII has killed some 200 million people instead of a "mere" 60 million. While I was feeling melodramatic and worded my posts accordingly the other day, I stand by the core content and predictions as being likely or unavoidable.

 

[MikeTurcotte]

It's a more stable, less dangerous (in the sense of not facing massive nuclear destruction of all civilization in the Northern Hemisphere) world, but one in which the quantity of blood spilled will be significantly higher over the coming 5 decades, especially for the "West." Frankly, the whole mess will involve a minimum of five or six decades of continuous economic and military involvement on the parts of the United States, the British Commonwealth, India, and Brazil to even begin to clean up, and lives will be spent by all of them for that entire period. While living standards in Europe will eventually be brought back above where they were in 1939, there IS going to be long-ongoing violence in France and Germany in particular, especially given the hints CalBear has posted as to their treatment by occupying authorities.

As for non-UN casualties, the coming Chinese civil war looks to dwarf the Great Leap Forward, the Russians are an ongoing humanitarian disaster, Europe will be in a state of low-grade guerrilla warfare for decades, with all the deaths that entails among civilians, Africa is no better off than IOTL, and Japan is hardly able to feed itself( some of their people likely are not doing so at all.)

The only spots that are actually better off than IOTL are India and Latin America, and it's hard to tell exactly to what degree this is true. By any definition, India is still poor; the saving grace seems to be that it's firmly integrated with the West both militarily and economically, and will never adopt the Fabian Socialist policies that so crippled it IOTL. Latin America's social and economic scenes have not been covered at all, so God only knows if their increased contribution to UN efforts is translating into economic improvement at all.

All in all, different and on the whole much, much worse post-war world, leaving aside the fact that TTL's WWII has killed some 200 million people instead of a "mere" 60 million. While I was feeling melodramatic and worded my posts accordingly the other day, I stand by the core content and predictions as being likely or unavoidable.

Great assessment, Loughery. I completely agree. The fact that Latin America hasn't been turned into the crater of despair Europe is doesn't mean it's significantly better off than in OTL. I do agree that with the death of Communism the POTENTIAL exists for Latin America to be happier than in OTL, but El Norte is still El Norte and the fact remains that many in Latin America are resentful of it; the fact that they can't really use Communism as a revolutionary alternative doesn't change the fact that many will seek one.

I've said it now many times before, and I'll continue to say it: At the the conclusion of this war, there will be one intact industrial power (the USA), one semi-intact one (the UK) and that's it. Yes Canada/Australia/NZ are doing fine - and I would guess that their production combined equal the economic output of Ohio or so. India ia more of a question, but even with an uplift from the UK, they aren't going to be anywhere near the USA/UK.

Other things: The strongest non-USA/UK/Canada/Australia Navy in the world will probably be Sweden's. The strongest army - Spain. Strongest Airforce - I'll give it to Sweden again. Meaning there is no opposition to the USA/UK as neither of those states would last a day in a conflict.

This world is devastated. There are almost no bright spots - even places like the USA and Canada, while the Kings of this world are poorer (in absolute terms) than in OTL because the global economy is so trashed. Humpty Dumpy had more than a merely Great fall - he had an epic COLLAPSE and there just ain't enough of the King's Horses or the King's men to put it back together again.

Long run the POTENTIAL exists for a happier situation if several things go right:
1. The WAllies stay allied, do not have a falling out, and cooperate.
2. The USA does not return to isolationism.
3. The WAllies do not impose an instrusive kind of Pax Anglospheria on the world
4. There are no other disasters - global pandemic caused by more bio weapons, for example.
5. The WAllies maintain a global military/police force to ensure no more dictators - but are wary of 3) above.

The USA and Commonwealth will have to spend less on the military while maintaining it; no near-peer competitor means no need for $2 billion/per plane stealth bombers (it is doubtful any opponent will even have radar, and even if they do, it doubtful that it will be as good as that found in the Hartford Connecticut regional airport). They will need more brigade-sized MP/COIN/Reconstruction forces. Having the Viet Cong as as ally will help in this regard.

Great TL, Calbear, just great.

Mike Turcotte

 

[Winston Smith]

I think with regard to Latin America, it's almost defiantly better than OTL. I wouldn't be surprised if the Brazilians, the Argentinians and the Chileans are using home made equipment. As Calbear has already stated, India has already started making Gloster Meteors, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Republic Thunderjets stamped 'Made in Brazil'. When it comes to Africa, I would say that in places like South Africa, Apartheid has been greatly weakened by the horrors of the Nazis crimes. I'm also quite sure that in order to provide things like manpower, as well as to provide money for the war effort, the allies are investing heavily in places like the Congo and such and such.

On a final note, I don' think all of Asia is gonna be that badly off. Thailand is probably prospering at this point. Not only that, but the Middle East in almost certainly rolling in oil money which brings me to a rather cool idea: an Arab Expeditionary Force in Europe?

P.S: It is my personal view that not all the world of TTL is worse then OTL. Some parts of it, like Latin America and Southern Asia are prospering at the expense of Europe and Northern Asia.

 

[loughery111]

P.S: It is my personal view that not all the world of TTL is worse then OTL. Some parts of it, like Latin America and Southern Asia are prospering at the expense of Europe and Northern Asia.

At no point did I say anything different; my assertion is merely that, on the balance, it's a worse world, and that much more blood will be spilled on a continuing basis ITTL than IOTL.

The First World will have different membership; thus, economically, TTL is likely to end up a wash as compared to OTL, with India's and Latin America's greater population and a more integrated world economy making up for the worse initial starting position compared to our post-war environment.

But that economic analysis hardly accounts for the horrible situation that prevails in most of Asia, all of Europe except a few countries, and most of Africa. TTL will almost inarguably see more death between 1965 and 2011 than OTL did, by far.

 

[Winston Smith]

I'm not disputing that TTL is much worse than OTL. It's just that life is better for some peoples than in OTL and a lot worse for others. Overall though, the negatives outbalance the good.

 

[lloyd007]

Lougherty... I honestly don't think the Allies are going to be trying more than abortive attempts to rebuild the devastated areas... I mean why spend all that money to rebuild a population that will do nothing more than hate you no matter what you do and live in an area where there aren't many vital resources (like oil) to justify the rebuilding in an economic sense. The hints seem to point more towards a Europe mostly abandoned to the wilds, possibly under the administration of the periphery states or possibly just a number of puppet / provisional govn'ts all of which are funded enough to provide food and shelter and not much else.

Europe has burned for 20 years under Nazi rule and is now burning under nuclear fire, by the end of this there aren't going to be all that many people left to foment resistance... starving, sick and desperate people aren't going to have the strength to form an effective resistance against the probably absentee Anglo Allies.

And frankly we don't KNOW how good or bad Africa is. At the very least it's not being subjected to US/ USSR inspired revolutions and the inter tribal grudge matches that enveloped states from time to time and caused starvations and other tragedies. Colonialism / Imperialism sucks, but its also stable especially considering the 'keep a lid on things' mentality the UK has right now.

We also know that SE Asia and it's hundreds of millions of people are better off TTL as well. Vietnam seems to be run decently as is the Philippines. We don't know too much about Thailand, Indonesia, Burma, Malaysia and etc. though.

The world's economy has always been pretty well decoupled from its population. I can still see a 2010 TTL being at or not far behind OTL 2010 wrt world GDP even if its population is possibly 2 billion less. If India turns into OTL China 40 years earlier that's a huge splash, if S. America grows much faster due to Allied investment that's big, same with SE Asia and even if some African nations rise above their OTL status. Of course there is the balance of W. Europe save Spain/Portugal being reduced to nothing (of course in that balance the UK certainly has a much larger economy than OTL's retrenchment and etc. in the late 40's/50's).

Everything in the balance wrt GDP seems to be offset to an extent. The huge loss of Japan / Germany /France /Italy and the USSR (China was a nonentity economically at this time) being possibly balanced by India (alone if it really takes off), S. America, SE Asia, the ANZAC (which are doubtlessly more populous due to immigration), the UK's economy being much larger as well as the USA being an even bigger behemoth than OTL by war's end. China, whenever it finally picks itself up will still become a juggernaut even at 1/2 the population (if things get even worse) simply because at 1/2 the population it is STILL the second most populous nation on Earth...

 

[MikeTurcotte]

On a final note, I don' think all of Asia is gonna be that badly off. Thailand is probably prospering at this point. Not only that, but the Middle East in almost certainly rolling in oil money which brings me to a rather cool idea: an Arab Expeditionary Force in Europe?

Doubt there are many oil dollars. The Anglo-Americans cutoff the Middle East from the Nazis. The Anglo-Americans have enough of their own domestic oil, and no one else in the world can buy any.

I have no doubt SOME oil is coming out of the Middle East, but nowhere near like in OTL.

Mike Turcotte

 

[loughery111]

Alright, I need to go to bed, but again, I'm saying economics are mostly a wash, and human cost is a massive, massive deficit over OTL. Also, the US is not going to be able to simply throw Europe to the wolves; it's going to have a HUGE military presence there for DECADES, and to be seen visibly abandoning any attempt at economic reconstruction of the continent will be tantamount to painting a bullseye on their backs.

 

[lloyd007]

I'd imagine if S. America is more prosperous it is developing its own oil fields to a greater extent. The US might retain a much larger portion of its passenger rail network due to the on and off war rationing to say nothing of cargo rail. All that trackage torn up from the 50's on is probably still in use and the car culture / suburbanization has been suppressed to an extent (this is also thanks to better race relations, 'white flight' is most likely lessened if not absent)

With the M. East still under UK colonial rule this is an area I'm sure the locals are being screwed. BP will probably be an even bigger target as an 'evil megacorp' than OTL...

 

[Krakenov]

Alright, I need to go to bed, but again, I'm saying economics are mostly a wash, and human cost is a massive, massive deficit over OTL. Also, the US is not going to be able to simply throw Europe to the wolves; it's going to have a HUGE military presence there for DECADES, and to be seen visibly abandoning any attempt at economic reconstruction of the continent will be tantamount to painting a bullseye on their backs.

Again, I largely agree with this, but for a few things. While it's been made fairly clear that the Allies will indeed maintain a presence in Europe for reconstruction, I don't think that they will bother with the rest of the world too much;

• Africa has never seemed to be a great concern for either power, and apart from a few nationalist movements and attempts by the Allies to introduce democracy not much appears to be done.
• Asia will probably be ignored altogether or left to India if possible. Given Japan's current condition and the US's unwillingness to let it redevelop, it is unlikely to be able to recover to any real degree. In the case of China, I simply can't see what the Allies would hope to gain from intervening. Their primary allies are based in SE Asia and the Phillippines, and as such are largely unaffected by China's collapse. The Allies could easily leave it till a dominant faction rises.

Overall though, I do agree with your analysis of Europe's post-war situation. However, I think it should be noted that in terms of damage to infrastructure and industry most of the damage seems to have occurred in France and Germany. While the rest of Europe has been severely depopulated, I didn't really get the impression that it had been stripped of any industry etc. So yes, the human cost is vastly greater than OTL, but the facts seem to suggest that a lot of Eastern Europe, Russia and maybe the Balkans have been allowed to industrialise in relative peace under Nazi rule. Unless the Allies attack these areas now, they should stay relatively intact. Therefore, in a 'best case' scenario, the Allies only have to rebuild Western Europe. Of course, as you said, they will still have to maintain large military presences throughout Europe, so a large expense may be found there.

 

[Bearcat]

In the absence of a communist "Big Bad", traditional American isolationism will reassert, at least to some degree. Basically, the US builds lots of ICBMs and SLBMs, and says, "Everyone leave us the fuck alone." America remains overwhelmingly powerful however, and its economic footprint will dominate the world well into the 21st century, far more than IOTL.

Its questionable to me whether Europe even can recover any time soon here. The future belongs to the US and eventually Asia. The UK may choose to bond itself more closely to the US. The concept of a EU or common market is unlikely to ever emerge.

 

[Tyg]

Its questionable to me whether Europe even can recover any time soon here. The future belongs to the US and eventually Asia. The UK may choose to bond itself more closely to the US. The concept of a EU or common market is unlikely to ever emerge.

I don't entirely disagree, but one could probably append a EFTA-style organization between the UK and neutral or relatively intact nations. Scandinavia, Iberia, Italy, Switzerland, the UK, Ireland, and perhaps the Low Countries could be an influential economic bloc, albeit loosely tied.

 

[Winston Smith]

I doubt the low countries would join, since most of the Netherlands is under-water at this point.

 

[Claymore]

It's a more stable, less dangerous (in the sense of not facing massive nuclear destruction of all civilization in the Northern Hemisphere) world, but one in which the quantity of blood spilled will be significantly higher over the coming 5 decades, especially for the "West."
<Snip>

Great assessment, Loughery. I completely agree. The fact that Latin America hasn't been turned into the crater of despair Europe is doesn't mean it's significantly better off than in OTL.
<Snip>

Blimey! I nip away for a day and 2 more pages appear!

I have to say that I completely agree with you both on this one. The world post war is, generally, not going to be a happy place.