The OTL Cold War idea of "Eastern" and "Western" Europe was kind of strange. Finland and Greece aren't really western European, and Czechia is more western or central European. Because of this, the economist has talked about the declining idea of "Eastern Europe" (Source:
).

Would a Cold War between Northern and Southern Europe last longer or be more protracted if political allegiances overlapped with cultural boundaries? The North South transition has a hazy border, so I'd define Iberia, Italy, Greece+Cyprus and the Balkans as unambiguously "Southern European" while "Northern Europe" would definitely include the British Isles, the Low countries, Scandinavia, Germany, Poland, and the Baltic states.
 
Well the reformation pratically happened down these lines,pit in some Germanic vs Romance ethnic conflict and you've got the basis for a prolonged conflict. Pretty easy to have a conflict but I'm not sure how to make it "cold".
 
In a differently ended Great War you might see a Fascist bloc form to loosely align Iberia, Italy and Hungary where the A-H Empire breaks in two. If the UK was neutral then it is the fickle one, France needs her but hates her. That leaves France and Germany the still faced off, but France far more vulnerable, the British as the other power and who knows what as to the Russians. You decide if Bulgaria goes Fascist or not. Same for Greece. To some a Fascist-ish France is also in the cards.

Thus I could sketch out a vaguely North versus South stand-off, the British here as the first among equals Great Power supports Italy and its allies to counter the hegemonic Germans to the North, France aligns to them or is a part, and France certainly supports Greece and hopes to have Romania too. An independent Croatia (joined with Slovenes, Serbs, Bosniaks, etc.?) looks like OTL Yugoslavia, an odd neutral playing the center. Keep Russia sidelined. Give Germany the Ottomans and you look very much a two "Super Power" paradigm. Does that suffice?
 
Hitler pisses of to many people during the Anschluss causing Mussolini to ally himself against the Nazis during WWII along with the British and the French. The European theater ends much quicker and the Americans only intervene against the Japanese Empire. Mussolini's successor starts to expand the Italian sphere of influence into Eastern Europe and into Africa. Stalin is then replaced by a ruler more friendly to the west (Beria?) and then the cold war starts between a NATO-Soviet pact and Mussolini's fascist alliance.
 
Wilson get his stroke at the begin of the Versailles conference taking him out of the picture, in the end things gone more smoothly for Italy (basically obtain little more than OTL, but much quicker and without drama, so no 'mutilated victory' myth) and in the long run for Greece as due to butterfly (and not now so friendly great powers) avert the death of King Alexander and the war against Turkey of 1919-22; butterfly fly and the March on Rome fail, the monarchist win in Portugal and Greece remain a monarchy.
In the north France become a right wing dictatorships, ironically in an alliance of convenience with fascist-like Germany and with a Poland that dream of create his Intermarum and a revanchist Turkey, in the east the Soviet Union look at the rest of Europe with dream of revolutionary expansion and finally in the south the Democratic (but slighty authoritarian) Constitutional Monarchies of Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece join together in a military alliance/custom union to protect themselfs
 
Ireland would be part of Southern Europe in such a scenario, which makes about as much sense as calling Greece Western Europe.
 
Ireland would be part of Southern Europe in such a scenario, which makes about as much sense as calling Greece Western Europe.
Sorry for necroposting, but why would Ireland be a part of Southren Europe? It is much closer to Northren Europe if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
Top