AHC. Largest possible cold war NATO

What is the largest possible number of member states that could be part of a cold war era NATO (or equiv. alliance). Extra points for including states from out side Europe and north america. Please provide pseudo justification.
 
You could have some sort of more global democratic alliance; Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Brazil, New Zealand, Australia, all spring to mind as possible members of this alliance.
 
Mexico and Brazil have no reason whatsoever to either apply for, or be accepted into NATO, neither of them has the military capacity when push comes to shove in a major conflict, the most they could contribute to a war effort is more bodies for the meat grinder, but World War One already happened.

Also, Cold War era Mexico and Brazil were not democracies.

Japan could not participate in a military alliance that would mandate offensive military action, it is well within US policy to prevent Japan from re-militarizing in any significant way, the only significant issue that would change that policy would be a concern that all-out war with China or the Soviet Union was imminent, or something about North Korea.

NATO could enlarge by a few of the traditionally neutral Scandinavian countries, plus Finland if they were in a mood to tease the enormous fanged dinosaur looming on their eastern border.

Allowing Middle Eastern states in could be a possibility, though the go-to pick Israel is unlikely, an "outside the box" nation like Iran is a possibility. As long as Turkey's willing to share the responsibility essentially, and as long as whoever this state is is trusted.

Sadat-era Egypt is a possibility, but getting the West to get over its historical mistrust of Egyptian intentions vis-a-vis Israel is quite a hurdle.
 
SEATO and CENTO were abortive security regimes of the Cold War, perhaps some members of these could join NATO rather than being left out in the cold.
 
You could have some sort of more global democratic alliance; Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Brazil, New Zealand, Australia, all spring to mind as possible members of this alliance.
Mexico and Brazil could easily join NATO. The rest would have to be some global capitalist thingy, yeah. Iran could join that. Not Israel. Not Egypt.
 
Depending on how far the Soviets advance we could see an East/West split of Austria with one half in each camp. That'd also likely bring Switzerland out of their neutrality and into the arms of NATO. Ireland could be interesting. As someone else said Sweden and potentially Finland could be brought into the fold as well.

Outside of Europe there's Mexico, and possibly one North African or Mediterranean country, though those could potentially fall into an enlarged CENTO instead.

Another interesting idea someone brought up is the CENTO and SEATO members, or at least the core members, being brought into a formal alliance in a reformed NATO (I think we're looking at GDI at that point), instead of OTL's MFN status. That would be an interesting timeline.
 
After the Polish resistance led by Franciszek Niepokolczycki manages to assasinate Hitler in Warsaw, October 5th of 1939, confused Nazi leadership settles down for a winter of Sitzkrieg.

Meanwhile Swedish intervention to Winter War and support for Norway keeps WW2 out from Scandinavia after the Peace of Moscow, where Finland only cedes southern Istmus instead of 10% of prewar territory that was annexed by the Soviets in OTL.

Feeling that the odds are against them, increasingly desperate OKW opts for original offensive plan in Benelux, and the German offensive stalls to central Belgium for rest of 1940 after clashing against the BEF and French armored and mechanized formations. Alarmed by the death of Hitler and poor German performance in Western Front, Italy stays neutral.

After Pearl Harbour brings US to the war in 1941, American troops and Lend-Lease equipment are enough to tip the balance in the Western Front. Stalin, being cautious of a possible capitalist plot, is still preparing RKKA for a major offensive to Germany when he is enraged to hear that the new German government has opted to surrender to the Allies, who swiftly land occupation troops to port of Danzig and occupy western Poland. As a countermove, Soviet Union officially annexes the Baltic states and occupied Bessarabia, thus scaring the authoritarian eastern European powers to seek protection from Western Allies.

Later on authoritarian Italy, Spain and Portugal also join in to the NATO alliance that already includes US, Canada, Britain, France, FRG, Austria, Republic of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria and Greece. Opposed to this alliance stands the Soviet Union, supported by the puppet state of People's Republic of Poland and People's Republics of China and Korea.
 
Mexico and Brazil have no reason whatsoever to either apply for, or be accepted into NATO, neither of them has the military capacity when push comes to shove in a major conflict, the most they could contribute to a war effort is more bodies for the meat grinder, but World War One already happened.

How much military potential did Greece or Turkey offer? Or Luxemburg, for that matter?

Also, Cold War era Mexico and Brazil were not democracies.

Turkey was a NATO member while being under a military junta. The same holds for Greece.

Japan could not participate in a military alliance that would mandate offensive military action, it is well within US policy to prevent Japan from re-militarizing in any significant way, the only significant issue that would change that policy would be a concern that all-out war with China or the Soviet Union was imminent, or something about North Korea.

Japan has a military. It's just not called that way. And the US frequently demanded from Japan to participate more in international peace keeping missions. Japanese military was happily accepted in Iraq as well.

Ultimately, the main difference between Germany and Japan is that the US issued a constitution for Japan earlier and introduced pacifism. If the occupational regime had lasted longer without parts of souvereignty established, I think the US would have allowed for remilitarization of Japan in a contractual framework that keeps the Japanese military in check - such as NATO.

To conclude, Australia and New Zealand are definitely possible, as are some Latin American countries and European neutrals. there's also the possibility that NATO is expanded to East Asia, which would make Japan, South Korea, Taiwan into members, plus possibly Thailand, the Philippines and Singapore.
 

wormyguy

Banned
The Soviets actually asked to join NATO when it was founded (in order to prove it was not defensive but anti-Soviet). Perhaps a President Adlai Stevenson would call their bluff?
 
Assumong the following conditions and situations, here's what I see as the maximum possible size of Western and Soviet alliance systems focused primarily on Europe and immediately surrounding areas (I presume the intent of the question is not to include the entire world). This is based on the following presuppositions: (1) A more aggressive Soviet push into northenr/eastern/central europe in the 1945-47 period that does not immediately result in immediate hostilities with the western allies, (2) more willingness of the main western powers (US, UK, and France) to assimilate unpleasant and fascist regimes into the alliance structure in response, (3) more willingness of the west to force/bribe former colonial states and/or second-class allies from WW2 into the scheme, (4) the desire of both the Soviets and West to put pressure on their enemies elsewhere to limit buildup in the core European Area, and/or (5) UN dissolves or becomes inconsequential

Given the above and other AH conceits, here's my alliances as of 1950, following North Korean conquest of South Korea

Western Defense Pact
USA
Canada
Mexico
Nicaragua
Cuba (pre 1962, remember)
Panama
UK
France
Benelux states
Iceland
Norway
Sweden (due to soviet occupation of Finland in this scenario)
Denmark
"West Austria" ( no agreed upon unification and neutralization)
West Germany (possibly allowed an anschluss with West Austria)
Spain
Portugal
Italy
Greece
Turkey
Egypt
Libya
Lebanon
Syria
Palestine/Israel (in this world UK doesn't abandon mandate, there is no UN partition - Soviet support for jewish terrorists is a reoccuring flashpoint)
Iraq
Saudia Arabia and other persian gulf kingdoms
Southern Iran
India
Japan
Republic of China (Taiwan)
Liberia
Union of South Africa
Ethiopia
Australia
New Zealand

International Soviet Brotherhood of Free People's Democracies

USSR
Finland
Poland
East Germany
"East Austria"
Czechoslovakia
Hungary (possiby merged with East Austria as the Austro-Hungarian Peoples Republic :D)
Yugoslavia (sorry Tito, no 3rd way for you)
Romania
Bulgaria
Afghanistan
North Iran
Mongolia
Peoples Republic of China
Korean Peoples Republic (the whole thing)
Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (French have bigger concerns elsewhere, basically abandon Indochina, western opposition drives into Soviet orbit)
Indonesia (a stretch, but lets imagine anti-dutch rebellion is sucessful earlier)
Malay Peoples Republic (ditto, but this time the British don't react sucessfully)
 
Sweden (due to soviet occupation of Finland in this scenario)

That Sweden would join *NATO if Finland goes *Warsaw Pact or is annexed by the USSR seems to have become a sort of a staple on the forum by now.

In fact one could say there would be very good reasons for Stockholm also to hold on to neutrality if Soviet troops are in Åland in the south and across the Tornio River in the north. The USSR could hold Sweden at gunpoint as it did Finland in the postwar years, pre-empting any possible move to join a Western defence organisation.

IOTL, Sweden held on to neutrality at least partly out of the force of habit and tradition, even if covertly working with the West. ITTL, there are more realpolitik reasons for "truer" neutrality - and that might start turning into an analogue to Finlandization at some point. A neutral Sweden could, for example, receive trade perks from the Soviet Union in the post-war years to boost its industry when much of its traditional markets in continental Europe are still suffering from the effects of the war. If neutrality means a preferential trade treatment and openly aligning with the West a virtual embargo in the Baltic, it might prove a reason enough not to make any rash moves to stray from the traditional path. There is also the Swedish-speaking population in Finland to think about, now held captive to Soviet whims. And a long, long maritime border to defend.

I could well envision a TL where Finland belongs to the Warsaw Pact, Sweden is (a more-or-less Finlandized) neutral and Norway a part of NATO. In this TL, people would speculate that if Finland could have - through some highly unlikely quirk of fate - held on to neutrality, Sweden would not suffer from such Soviet influence exerted on it and would be free "to fully join the west", like Norway was behind the buffer of this neutral Sweden.

Thus, Neutral Finland = Sweden in NATO.:p
 
Last edited:
Heavier British casualties and Stalin's channeling of Polish POWs into Soviet sponsored "Free Polish" units leads to a man-power shortage for the western allies. Mexico, Brazil, Cuba, and Colombia parlay this crisis into gaining economic and military aid from the United States; the FDR administration agree to this as part of the "Good Neighbor" policy.

Objections and skepticism from the U.S. military are over come when it is agreed that all latin units will be trained, organized, and outfitted to U.S. Army standards.

Cuban, Colombian, Mexican, and Brazilian troops participate in the ETO while Mexico and Brazil also send smaller numbers of troops to the PTO. All are counted as part of the victorious "combatant powers" at the end of the war.

With the formation of NATO all four countries are founding members of NATO. (All also send at least some combat troops to fight in the Korean war).

All four latin nations receive significant economic benefits from their membership in the western alliance leading to them having much stronger economies than our timeline.

By the early 1980's the Latin American members of NATO have the following troop commitments.

Brazil:
(Peace time commitment)
deployed to Italy: 1 Mech. Infantry Div, 1 Armored Brig, 1 ACR.
(War time commitment) 1st Brazilian Exp. Corps HQ, 1 Armored Div (2 round out Brigades + forward deployed brigade), 1 Mech. Infantry Div. 2 Motorized Infantry Divs. 1 ACR, 1 Attack Helicopter Brigade, 1 Portuguese Mech. Brigade
To the NATO Med. Mobile Force: 1 Airborne brigade, 1 Airmobile Brigade, 1 Marine Division, 1 Lt. Infantry Division, 1 Motorized Cavalry Regiment, Special Forces Group.

Mexico:
(Peace time Commitments)
Deployed to Germany: 1 Mech. Infantry Brigade, 1 Armored Brigade, 2 Motorized infantry Brigades, 1 MCR.
Deployed to Italy: 1 Mountain Infantry Brigade
(Wartime commitment)
Germany: Mexican Army Europe Corps HQ, 1 Armored Div (2 round out brigades + deployed brigade), 1 Mech. Infantry Division, 2 Motorized Divs., 1 MCR, 1 Attack Helicopter Brigade,
Italy: 1 Mountain Infantry Div
NATO Mobile reserve: 1 Airmobile Brigade, 1 Airborne brigade, 1 Marine Regiment, Special Forces Battalion.

Cuba:
(Peace time Commitments)
Germany: 1 Mech. Brigade, 1 Armored Brigade
(Wartime commitments, attached to American IV Corps) 1 Armored Brigade, 1 Mech Brigade, 2 Motorized Brigades.
Nato General Reserve: 1 Airmobile Brigade, 1 Airborne Brigade, Special forces Battalion, Marine Regiment

Colombia:
(Peace time commitments)
Italy: 1 Mountain inf. Brigade.
(Wartime commitments) 1 Mountain Inf. Div
NATO General reserve. 1 Lt Infantry Div, 1 Airmobile Brigade, Special Force Group.
 
Still more alternate NATO members

Ireland

Ireland entered the post war world attempting to maintain a stance strict neutrality in the cold war similar to what it had done in World War 2. Occasional Soviet Naval intrusions into Irish waters and economic pressure to integrate into the west were balanced by strong anti-british and isolationist sentiments in the Irish electorate. The tipping point came in 1962 when an attempted coup against the government in Dublin by radical elements of the Irish Republican Army was traced directly back to the KGB. The Kennedy administration's offer to help Ireland join the western alliance are readily accepted by Dublin government.

Ireland never stationed troops on the european mainland on a permanent basis, instead concentrating on home defense and providing bases to help keep the sea lanes to Europe open. There were contingency plans to send a composite rapid deployment brigade to Europe in the event of war. This force mainly consisted of light motorized and air-mobile troops backed by a squadron of motorized cavalry and an Artillery battery.

Australia and New Zealand

As members of the British Commonwealth and the ANSUS pack Australia and New Zealand were enticed to join NATO at its foundation. The membership of these two nations also help cement NATO's connections with the SEATO organization. Australian and New Zealand military forces were primarily tasked with defense of their home countries and operations in Asia and the Near East. However contingency plans existed to send the following forces to Europe in event of war should the situation in Asia prove stable enough. ANZAC Corps HQ, 2 Australian Light Mechanized/Motorized Divisions, 1 Australian Armored Division, 1 Australian Airborne Brigade+ New Zealand Battalion, 1 composite New Zealand field force (one motorized and one light infantry brigade plus artillery.) 1 Attack helicopter Brigade, and a Special forces contingent.
 
Top