Alternate Cold War scenario

[Aranfan]

Here he calls people who want to learn Slavic languages:
irresistible nationalistic fascination for quaint peasant dialects
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=2607443#post2607443

Context is important here. I see that comment as no worse than someone saying that "America wouldn't annex Mexico, too many damn Mexicans live there."

Also almost every third of his topics deals on the issue how Germany effectively exterminate Slavs from existance, either by physical or cultural genocide.
There so many examples that I don't bother listing them all, let's just say that Eurofed believes extermination of Slavs would increase somewhat and worsen the negative judgement on Nazism, but not radically . Those are his own words by the way.

I think that has more to do with the Nazi's being considered pure evil already, so it's hard to "radically worsen" the judgment of them.

Really his views are obvious, even if he tries to conceal them under a mask, and to me seem nothing more then a form of neo-fascism(note the fascination with two Axis powers Italy and Germany) combined with Germanophilia, and I think other's have pointed it out also. Mind you this is the kind of modern fascist thought, with careful seperation from issue of Jews in order to succesfully present other ideas(and note again how the barely concealed racist bias against Slavs is kept in the posts, while the issue of Jews is always considered with great care to avoid criticism). Eurofed may think his original or tricks some people here, but I do believe some others just like me have encountered those kind of ideologists before and can classify them.

I don't recall him ever arguing for fascism as an economic system.

 

[Krix]

I don't recall him ever arguing for fascism as an economic system.

I don't know about economy in fascism, but he argues for the eradication of cultures who oppose being part of an imperialistic state, which seems fascist enough for me.

 

[Aranfan]

The Mongols get more bad press than they indeed deserved, given their big perchant for tolerance, even if it must be remembered they also wrote the manual for large scale atrocities centuries before Hitler and Stalin, they turned the Middle East into a waste. I'm ambivalent about them. In all likelihood, they would have wrecked Europe as bad as they did the Middle East.

The Mongols were actually pretty progressive for their time. None of their atrocities were unusual for the time, it's just that it spanned from what is now Ukraine all the way to Hainan. The Mongols also introduced paper money, a system of taxation that China uses to this day, stabilized the Silk Road and created the largest free trade area yet, and outlawed the selling of women.

 

[Aranfan]

I don't know about economy in fascism, but he argues for the eradication of cultures who oppose being part of an imperialistic state, which seems fascist enough for me.

You know jack shit about what fascism is then. Fascism is a mixed economic system where the industries vital to the functioning of the State are nationalized and the rest duke it out Laissez-Faire. Fascism is not Nazism, it's an economic system, just as Communism is a command economy, not Stalinism.


Perhaps my being from New Jersey gives me a different view of cultures that want to tear apart a nation. I think Cultures should be allowed to express themselves, but not at the expense of the stability provided by the state.

 

[Krix]

I think Cultures should be allowed to express themselves, but not at the expense of the stability provided by the state.

If a the state was imposed on them against their will and they desire to end their oppression, that's not a stability, but the chains of prison state.

Perhaps my being from New Jersey gives me a different view of cultures that want to tear apart a nation.

Yeah, like those awful colonists who teared apart British Empire, or pesky Poles who dared to demand freedom from peace loving Russian and German Empires.

You know jack shit about what fascism is then. Fascism is a mixed economic system where the industries vital to the functioning of the State are nationalized and the rest duke it out Laissez-Faire. Fascism is not Nazism, it's an economic system, just as Communism is a command economy, not Stalinism.

That's one definition. Other's exist. And disrespect for other cultures, demand to enslave them into one imperialistic country is quite fitting with many fascist definitions I believe.

 

[Aranfan]

If a the state was imposed on them against their will and they desire to end their oppression, that's not a stability, but the chains of prison state.

Perhaps, it would depend on the exact nature of the grievances, real and perceived. Something like the nightmare states of 1984 should be shattered, but Germany and Russia were liberalizing.

Yeah, like those awful colonists who teared apart British Empire, or pesky Poles who dared to demand freedom from peace loving Russian and German Empires.

I was thinking more about the South in the ACW, but I never denied that imperialism was bad. My heart goes out for them, and if they can throw off the shackles and create their own stability, like in Haiti, then I cheer for them, but things can change and improve without revolution. After all, a hundred years ago who would have thought that a black man would be president of the most powerful nation on earth?

That's one definition. Other's exist. And disrespect for other cultures, demand to enslave them into one imperialistic country is quite fitting with many fascist definitions I believe.

I'm sure many of the people of the former soviet union would also say it fits with the definitions of communism, yet put a Communist and a Fascist in a room together and they will fight to the death.

 

[Krix]

Something like the nightmare states of 1984 should be shattered, but Germany and Russia were liberalizing.

Is that the reason German Empire planned ethnic cleansing of Jews and Poles and Russian Empire revoked laws granted after 1905...?

but things can change and improve without revolution. After all, a hundred years ago who would have thought that a black man would be president of the most powerful nation on earth?

Obama doesn't come from a country invaded and occupied by USA which was on North American continent, that's really not a good comparison.

yet put a Communist and a Fascist in a room together and they will fight to the death.

I don't recall that during scenarios of Communists vs Nazis or Fascists Eurofed cheered for Communists...He can correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Aranfan]

Is that the reason German Empire planned ethnic cleansing of Jews and Poles and Russian Empire revoked laws granted after 1905...?

I said liberalizing, not liberal. And where these plans ever put into action?

Obama doesn't come from a country invaded and occupied by USA which was on North American continent, that's really not a good comparison.

You sir are a liar. The Kingdom of Hawaii was ruthlessly subjected to American Imperialism.

I don't recall that during scenarios of Communists vs Nazis or Fascists Eurofed cheered for Communists...He can correct me if I am wrong.

Only because the Commies were never in a position to dominate the Continent. If Germany had gone Commie instead of Fascist then Eurofed would still be rooting for them.

 

[Blue Max]

So, while there is a bit of sniping going on in here, if I could get this back on topic:

Looking at this TL, I wonder certain things:

1. Whether the Allies would really let the Soviets have all of Yugoslavia, or they'd try to grab a piece of it as well. I'm not sure that Tito is going to want to be a Soviet Puppet and the situation in that country can safely be described as complicated. Given the position of armed forces on this map, I'd think if the Allies got any of Yugoslavia, they'd keep it--thus there would probably be a Croatian state on the map as a member of the allies.

1b. This would probably mean that the Soviets would have a Serbian ally, a Montenegrin one, a Bosnian one, etc...

2. Republic of Greece would probably also hold Athens, unless the Soviets are willing to risk war against the Allies for all of it, which I doubt. That would be the breakdown of the Greek Civil War, but with the Allies ready to back Greece I'd think a Partition would be in place.

3. North Japan is often discussed as a possibility, but I think this would be harder than one might expect. The Soviets lack the naval forces to move into Honshu, and I'm not at all sure that Hokkaido alone is worth claiming as a "Soviet Japan". Given that the Soviets were quite happy to roll the Japanese off Sakhalin, I'd suspect that the outcome is probably a simple annexation of Hokkaido.

Finally, there is one more place for the Soviets to push the Allies--Iran. If the Soviets continue on their course of going to broke, they annex Tabriz and the Northwest corner of the country to the Azerij SSR and probably impose a puppet regime on Tehran.

On the flip side, however, I'd expect the United States to not tolerate a communist Cuba at all...

The immediate thing that comes to mind is that the relationship between the Soviets and the United States is going to be colder.

@Divisions of Germany: The HRE can not be considered the basis of the German Nation, otherwise you'd have demands for Naples to be annexed to Germany.

Austria is going to become an independent country, because the people at the helm--Karl Renner et al, are going to be able to argue that they are an occupied nation to avoid Nazi War Guilt. The Allies will almost certainly attempt some kind of restraint against Germany--I would expect the Munich Agreement to get scuttled, and Germany at best is going to get its 1937 borders, at worst France might grab the Saarland. While the Allies would certainly love to split Germany up, I don't think there is any real staying power for separate German States beyond Lumembourg and Austria--yeah, it would be seen as a good move if Bavaria became independent, but even with the potential goodwill of getting out of "Germany" to become an independent nation is not going to suffice as an inducement to break up Germany. I would also see small regions in the east like the Opole region being moved to West Poland.

@Fascism as an economic system: Not sure that I agree. I would see it as a political system that doesn't necessitate control over economics. Germany wasn't lassiez faire in WWII, but the industrialists were allied with the interests of the government. Germany was definitely not a free market, indeed, the country was on the brink of economic disaster with its massive deficit spending. Government involvement was heavy but its intention was to maximize output, not to squeeze out industrialists (Except for Jews)

I'd ask you guys to lay off the personal attacks--at best its off topic and at worst it can earn a week off AH.com

 

[Workable Goblin]

Another on-topic post...
I really like this one. While the Western Allies do better in Europe, they do worse in Asia, so it's not all flowers and light. Plus, the Soviets get a good strategic position in the south, cutting the NATO block in two (on land), which has gotta have some major strategic implications. Turkey looks very vulnerable. I can see some major jockeying for position in Egypt to ensure a friendly Suez Canal. Maybe trying to bring Egypt into NATO? Overall, I think the Cold War will have more intense proxy conflict here as certain strategic points (Suez, Hormuz, heck the whole middle east) are more vulnerable to Soviet attention and more obviously critical for the West. Israel seems doubtful (would annoy the Arabs too much).

 

[Winner]

Looking at this TL, I wonder certain things:

1. Whether the Allies would really let the Soviets have all of Yugoslavia, or they'd try to grab a piece of it as well. I'm not sure that Tito is going to want to be a Soviet Puppet and the situation in that country can safely be described as complicated. Given the position of armed forces on this map, I'd think if the Allies got any of Yugoslavia, they'd keep it--thus there would probably be a Croatian state on the map as a member of the allies.

In this TL, Soviets liberated most of Yugoslavia before it could liberate itself, ergo the Soviet influence would have been much greater. Moreover, Stalin simply wanted to compensate for Central Europe in other places: the Balkans, Greece, Asia...

2. Republic of Greece would probably also hold Athens, unless the Soviets are willing to risk war against the Allies for all of it, which I doubt. That would be the breakdown of the Greek Civil War, but with the Allies ready to back Greece I'd think a Partition would be in place.

The communists won in Greece sooner than the Allies could really do anything about it. The British at least helped to set up anti-communist Greek government on Crete, Cyprus and Rhodos. It's a bit like Taiwan in OTL, a nationalist anti-communist island government claiming sovereignty over the mainland country.

3. North Japan is often discussed as a possibility, but I think this would be harder than one might expect. The Soviets lack the naval forces to move into Honshu, and I'm not at all sure that Hokkaido alone is worth claiming as a "Soviet Japan". Given that the Soviets were quite happy to roll the Japanese off Sakhalin, I'd suspect that the outcome is probably a simple annexation of Hokkaido.

Since they didn't get "their share" of Germany (except East Prussia), they wanted to take a much of Japan as possible. The took greater risks and succeeded. It's not that ASB - Soviets were willing to take huge losses, unlike the Allies. Moreover, they grabbed the most of the land after the Japanese surrender.

Finally, there is one more place for the Soviets to push the Allies--Iran. If the Soviets continue on their course of going to broke, they annex Tabriz and the Northwest corner of the country to the Azerij SSR and probably impose a puppet regime on Tehran.

They kept northern Iran (Kurdish Soviet Socialistic Republic and Southern Azerbaijan S.R.), but the rest of the country remained non-Soviet due to Allied support.

On the flip side, however, I'd expect the United States to not tolerate a communist Cuba at all...

CMC probably didn't happen in this timeline.

 

[Winner]

Another on-topic post...
I really like this one. While the Western Allies do better in Europe, they do worse in Asia, so it's not all flowers and light. Plus, the Soviets get a good strategic position in the south, cutting the NATO block in two (on land), which has gotta have some major strategic implications. Turkey looks very vulnerable.

Definitely. This is why they rely on NATO much more than in OTL.

I can see some major jockeying for position in Egypt to ensure a friendly Suez Canal. Maybe trying to bring Egypt into NATO? Overall, I think the Cold War will have more intense proxy conflict here as certain strategic points (Suez, Hormuz, heck the whole middle east) are more vulnerable to Soviet attention and more obviously critical for the West. Israel seems doubtful (would annoy the Arabs too much).

About Israel - I am not sure about what to do with it. Holocaust in this timeline didn't reach its climax due to the early defeat of Nazi Germany. Many more Jews would survive in ghettos and concentration camps, which would only increase the demographic pressure in Palestine. I think it is possible that Israel would not only be founded as in OTL, but it could also annex more land in the Independence war (perhaps the whole West Bank/Gaza?) to make room for more Jewish settlers. Don't forget that the final 1949 borders were dictated by the military reality on the ground - if Israel had been more successful, it would also have been much bigger.

The important difference in this version of the Cold War is that the Soviets now have a solid presence in the Mediterranean, which could allow them to support Arab nationalists/socialists much more effectively.

 

[Jeremak]

Instead of arguing about "eternal", "Piast" boundaries between the Poland and German, which, however, were only a moment in history (most durable was the eastern frontier of HRE - from the fourteenth to the nineteenth century) look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GermanyMorgenthau.PNG, Option 1: Morghenthau border, but the Marshall help( aid, lack of de-industrialization...), or Option 2, on the basis of the text of Wlodzimierz Borodziej, Professor of history on the University of Warsaw, in the Polish version of the book "What-if .." (ISBN 978-83-7427-449-4, published by Demart). I quote and translate: "(post-war conferention: Posdam) There is no discussion as to the liquidation of East Prussia: the northern part with the Kaliningrad goes to the Soviet Union, the south part with Olsztyn is granted to Poland...", "Poland take the Free City of Gdańsk and the Regency of Opolen, in addition to several Pomeranian counties..." He has too, as there, the Polish division occurs along the Vistula River. But I am not curious about the border with Germany, but that, as during the Cold War incidents what will do Western Poland, a NATO member, ruled by people like Anders, with a strong army, with every bridge over the river being the "Checkpoint Charile" which guard the other hand, by the Soviets? Proffesor have "Gaulle style" goverment change from parlametarism in 60', after border crisis in 50' (something like Berlin blockade, but without blockade)

 

[Blue Max]

In this TL, Soviets liberated most of Yugoslavia before it could liberate itself, ergo the Soviet influence would have been much greater. Moreover, Stalin simply wanted to compensate for Central Europe in other places: the Balkans, Greece, Asia...

I think it's a great idea; that said, I would expect the Allies would get a slice of Northern Yugoslavia just based on the geography. I don't see the Soviets getting to Zagreb faster than the Allies if the Allies control the Adriatic Sea. It is doable, I suppose, but the distances here are considerable.

The communists won in Greece sooner than the Allies could really do anything about it. The British at least helped to set up anti-communist Greek government on Crete, Cyprus and Rhodos. It's a bit like Taiwan in OTL, a nationalist anti-communist island government claiming sovereignty over the mainland country.

Makes sense, although I'd suspect that the Royalist Greeks would have many more of the islands than just those three, given the strengths of the Allies.

Since they didn't get "their share" of Germany (except East Prussia), they wanted to take a much of Japan as possible. The took greater risks and succeeded. It's not that ASB - Soviets were willing to take huge losses, unlike the Allies. Moreover, they grabbed the most of the land after the Japanese surrender.

I doubt the Allies would allow it. The Soviets don't have the shipping to get to Honshu, willingness to take losses to the contrary. With no deal between the Soviets and the Allies for territory, I can't see the Soviets getting very far. Shipping, not a willingness to take casualties, would be the major issue. North Japan isn't impossible--a Soviet landing on Hokkaido would work, but Hokkaido, Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands really don't make a serious "North Japan", particularly if the Soviets want to just start annexing stuff.

They kept northern Iran (Kurdish Soviet Socialistic Republic and Southern Azerbaijan S.R.), but the rest of the country remained non-Soviet due to Allied support.

This is going to cause the Soviets all manner of frustrations in the future when Militant Islam rears its ugly head.

CMC probably didn't happen in this timeline.

 

[Workable Goblin]

About Israel - I am not sure about what to do with it. Holocaust in this timeline didn't reach its climax due to the early defeat of Nazi Germany. Many more Jews would survive in ghettos and concentration camps, which would only increase the demographic pressure in Palestine. I think it is possible that Israel would not only be founded as in OTL, but it could also annex more land in the Independence war (perhaps the whole West Bank/Gaza?) to make room for more Jewish settlers. Don't forget that the final 1949 borders were dictated by the military reality on the ground - if Israel had been more successful, it would also have been much bigger.

The important difference in this version of the Cold War is that the Soviets now have a solid presence in the Mediterranean, which could allow them to support Arab nationalists/socialists much more effectively.

While that's true, I think there may be some latitude for the Allies to try to negotiate a different settlement with the Jews--settlement in Alaska for example (which I believe was seriously bandied about), which doesn't have any pesky, strategically critical natives--to try to placate the Arabs and make them allies, or at least benevolently neutral. In this situation, the obvious problem that massive Jewish settlement would cause wrt the Palestine/Arab population, and the high strategic value of that population (if you can control Suez, even if the Soviets capture Istanbul and the Daradanelles they will still find it hard to interdict your major shipping routes to and from Europe) seem to make it at least plausible that a different settlement is enacted.

Similarly, I think that the Allies might try harder in other theatres--supporting India instead of Pakistan, for example. While I doubt Nehru would ever ally with the US (or the USSR, for that matter), there was probably some latitude for arms deals and economic aid, which would probably have kept India friendly, and benefited Western industry. Given the important position of India, controlling a number of SLOCs (albeit ones which were not as important in the immediate post-WWII world), this also seems plausible. And I expect something of the same sentiment plays out elsewhere.