America an an Imperialist-Soviet cold war

So let's imagine that WW2 is over much sooner and is much less damaging, meaning the Brits and the French are still independent great powers able to ward off Soviet expansionism on their own. There's a pretty good case to be made that this means the western Europeans are drawn into a cold war type face-off with the Soviet Union. But does this necessarily mean that the USA is drawn into affairs on the European Continent? Or into the cold war at all? And what happens in a world where the most powerful state keeps itself neutral in the cold war?

Or is there no way for the US to become involved in supporting the west Europeans against the Soviets?

fasquardon
 
So let's imagine that WW2 is over much sooner and is much less damaging, meaning the Brits and the French are still independent great powers able to ward off Soviet expansionism on their own. There's a pretty good case to be made that this means the western Europeans are drawn into a cold war type face-off with the Soviet Union. But does this necessarily mean that the USA is drawn into affairs on the European Continent? Or into the cold war at all? And what happens in a world where the most powerful state keeps itself neutral in the cold war?

Or is there no way for the US to become involved in supporting the west Europeans against the Soviets?

fasquardon

Well, a lot depends on how WW2 ends more quickly and in a less damaging way. The quickest and cleanest POD would be that the French/British attack Germany (and I mean really attacked not the half-assed attempt in the Saar from OTL) while the German army is preoccupied in Poland- one of the leading Wermacht generals wrote in his memoirs (I think it was Halder but I'm pretty shaky on that) that if they had done so Germany would have fallen in about three weeks.

Obviously in this scenario the US wouldn't be drawn into Europe to nearly the same extent as it was OTL (no military bases to start with, no NATO), but in terms of financial and political support the US would absolutely back the Franco-British in any type of cold War scenario that pits them against the Soviets.
 
Well, a lot depends on how WW2 ends more quickly and in a less damaging way. The quickest and cleanest POD would be that the French/British attack Germany (and I mean really attacked not the half-assed attempt in the Saar from OTL) while the German army is preoccupied in Poland- one of the leading Wermacht generals wrote in his memoirs (I think it was Halder but I'm pretty shaky on that) that if they had done so Germany would have fallen in about three weeks.

Obviously in this scenario the US wouldn't be drawn into Europe to nearly the same extent as it was OTL (no military bases to start with, no NATO), but in terms of financial and political support the US would absolutely back the Franco-British in any type of cold War scenario that pits them against the Soviets.

The specific scenarios I had in mind were either a 1938 throw-down over Czechoslovakia or the Soviets doing much better in Barbarossa and the war ending in 1943.

EDIT: And personally, I would have thought that US actions mainly depend on if they end up fighting in WW2. But even in a case where the US fought and did so in Europe, I can see their support for their fellow capitalists being more distant. In a sense, one could see how OTL went as the weakness of Britain and France creating a power vacuum that sucked America into Europe and resulted in NATO and a very direct US-Soviet face-off. So an alt-US might be more focused on keeping Communism out of the Americas, but not so directly involved in Europe and in the European colonies/former colonies.

fasquardon
 
Last edited:
The specific scenarios I had in mind were either a 1938 throw-down over Czechoslovakia or the Soviets doing much better in Barbarossa and the war ending in 1943.

Well, there is also a couple of other option:

1- neutral Italy (it save the British from being bankrupted by the war as they don't need to fight in Africa and the mediterrean remain open, easing the logistic)
2- The invasion of France fail or the Anglo-French Union is formed, and this probably it's enough to also keep the italian neutrals; Japan can go to their suicide run as OTL in any scenario.
In both case, western europe it's not devasted and the URSS has not expanded to inglobe half of the continent making the european-solo containment affair more manageable

The USA will probably revert to their isolationist stance and limit their ties with Europe to the economic type, while still consider the Pacific and the rest of the Americas their turf. While they will support the europeans against the communist it's very probable that they will remain anticolonialist, seeing with suspicious the colonial empire of europe
 
Well, there is also a couple of other option:

1- neutral Italy (it save the British from being bankrupted by the war as they don't need to fight in Africa and the mediterrean remain open, easing the logistic)
2- The invasion of France fail or the Anglo-French Union is formed, and this probably it's enough to also keep the italian neutrals; Japan can go to their suicide run as OTL in any scenario.
In both case, western europe it's not devasted and the URSS has not expanded to inglobe half of the continent making the european-solo containment affair more manageable

The USA will probably revert to their isolationist stance and limit their ties with Europe to the economic type, while still consider the Pacific and the rest of the Americas their turf. While they will support the europeans against the communist it's very probable that they will remain anticolonialist, seeing with suspicious the colonial empire of europe

Do those ties include the massive war-debts both counteries are going to be in by war's end... after failing to pay back their similar debt-loads from the LAST war? Because I fully expect America to continue its strong neutrality policy, both due to not seeing the economic benefit of propping up Europe's captive markets AGAIN after they've already demonstrated their credit unworthiness and public sentiment making such stances politically unpopular.

Unlike IRL, there isen't the impetuous of the economic of the continent/power vacuum, shared co-belligerance against the Nazi's, threat of massive communist expansion, or plum in the form of the dismantling the Imperial Preferance system and gaining access to the French Imperial market to tempt the US into being anywhere nearly as generous with loans, debt forgiveness, military and technical aid, ect. In such an event, I could see Britain, France, Italy, and Japan reaching some kind of rapprochement in a grand Imperial alliance (Which would include stabbing China in the heart) as the only viable option for containing the U.S.S.R, with the US looking on in disgust.
 
Do those ties include the massive war-debts both counteries are going to be in by war's end... after failing to pay back their similar debt-loads from the LAST war? Because I fully expect America to continue its strong neutrality policy, both due to not seeing the economic benefit of propping up Europe's captive markets AGAIN after they've already demonstrated their credit unworthiness and public sentiment making such stances politically unpopular.

Every scenario (mine and fsquadron) mean an europe a lot less indebted towards the US (and an USA with a lot less leverage towards the old continent)...and it's better remember that europe had repayed the war debt with the americas, just suspended the payment due to something called the Great Depression (a whole american affair that caused worldwide damage) and regarding the value of the European Market...yeah sure that they will sell their own grandmother to gain access to it
 
The specific scenarios I had in mind were either a 1938 throw-down over Czechoslovakia or the Soviets doing much better in Barbarossa and the war ending in 1943.

The former is a vastly different case then the latter, though. The former, depending on the details, might not see the Soviets present in Central Europe (depending on the details) but would certainly see no direct American involvement as well as France and Britain maintaining themselves as largely independent great powers. The latter, on the other hand, would mean Soviets are likely sitting on the Rhine while the US has still been shocked out of it's isolation to heavily involve itself in global affairs, France is still a gutted shell after the German occupation, and Britain is wholly dependent on the US to maintain basic financial solvency.

In the former case, I'd expect while the former might or might not see a Anglo-French vs Soviet Cold War with the US as a technically-neutral-but-heavily-leans-Anglo-French third party. The latter would still fundamentally be basically the OTL US vs Soviet Cold War except the iron curtain is further west, the USSR is much more powerful, and the US is likely harboring a greater McCarthyite siege mentality because of it.
 
The specific scenarios I had in mind were either a 1938 throw-down over Czechoslovakia or the Soviets doing much better in Barbarossa and the war ending in 1943.

EDIT: And personally, I would have thought that US actions mainly depend on if they end up fighting in WW2. But even in a case where the US fought and did so in Europe, I can see their support for their fellow capitalists being more distant. In a sense, one could see how OTL went as the weakness of Britain and France creating a power vacuum that sucked America into Europe and resulted in NATO and a very direct US-Soviet face-off. So an alt-US might be more focused on keeping Communism out of the Americas, but not so directly involved in Europe and in the European colonies/former colonies.

fasquardon

I think the former scenario is more likely to have a more distant US. With a 1941 POD you basically can't avert the US getting into the war, and once that happens IMO there's no going back, the US is going to become the world imperialist world policeman at that point, France will still have fallen and Britain all but bankrupt.

If the 1938 scenario plays out, what happens to defeated Germany? I'm skeptical that the French/British would be nearly as harsh on it as OTL WWII.
 
So let's imagine that WW2 is over much sooner and is much less damaging, meaning the Brits and the French are still independent great powers able to ward off Soviet expansionism on their own. There's a pretty good case to be made that this means the western Europeans are drawn into a cold war type face-off with the Soviet Union. But does this necessarily mean that the USA is drawn into affairs on the European Continent? Or into the cold war at all? And what happens in a world where the most powerful state keeps itself neutral in the cold war?

Or is there no way for the US to become involved in supporting the west Europeans against the Soviets?

fasquardon

Even in the supposedly isolationist 1920's in OTL the US quietly but (for a while) effectively worked to improve Anglo-French relations with Germany. This culminated in Locarno, which was at least seen by the Soviet Union as a move to create an anti-Soviet west-and-central-European bloc.

"At that point, Ambassador Houghton, giving the keynote address at the Pilgrim Sciety in London on May 4, 1925, issued what has been called ‘‘America’s Peace Ultimatum to Europe.’’ Houghton, whose address was broadcast via radio, made it clear that America was the only source of the loans that were needed to fuel British reconstruction, and that, absent peace and security on the continent, further loans would not be forthcoming. The New York Times’ headline captured the essence of the speech succinctly: ‘‘Houghton Demands Peace In Europe Or Our Aid Ceases.’’ (Matthews 2004:121) Coolidge himself reemphasized the message in a public speech 2 months later. The result, the Treaty of Locarno, was signed by Germany, France, Belgium, Great Britain and Italy and constituted a mutual guarantee of the German-French and German-Belgian borders and demilitarized the Rhineland (Costigliola 1976:497–498; Hogan 1977:213; Costigliola 1984:120–122). In so doing, it replaced the inherently unstable Versailles security structure in Western Europe." http://www.braumoeller.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Myth-of-US-Isolationism.pdf

I suspect we would see something like this again: the US supporting, by economic if not by military means, a stronger and more united western Europe (including Germany if possible)--though this time the containment of the USSR may be a more conscious objective.
 
If the 1938 scenario plays out, what happens to defeated Germany? I'm skeptical that the French/British would be nearly as harsh on it as OTL WWII.

It's hard to be much harsher than the Allies were after WW2. Especially before the cold war caused the WAllies to change their treatment of Germany.

Germany could still end up entirely occupied, looted, her leaders tried and executed and her size much reduced by annexations. Britain and France were weaker in 1938, but Germany was much weaker and they'd have Czechoslovakia and perhaps Poland fighting them too.

It would be interesting to find some way that the Nazis could hold onto power and Germany could remain an independent great power after losing a 1938 war.

Japan can go to their suicide run as OTL in any scenario.

I strongly suspect that Japan would stay away from fighting the European powers in any of the scenarios we're discussing. Japan's great gamble was only remotely feasible with Western Europe under German occupation and German armies in the Moscow suburbs, apparently about to end the Soviet Union as a great power. If Germany doesn't seem like it is about to fix all the other European powers, there's no sense in Japan rolling the dice against the USA and Britain's eastern empire.

Do those ties include the massive war-debts both counteries are going to be in by war's end... after failing to pay back their similar debt-loads from the LAST war? Because I fully expect America to continue its strong neutrality policy, both due to not seeing the economic benefit of propping up Europe's captive markets AGAIN after they've already demonstrated their credit unworthiness and public sentiment making such stances politically unpopular.

Well, there's the old saying - when you owe the bank $100,000, the bank owns you; when you owe the bank $1,000,000, you own the bank.

The more the US loans to the WAllies, the bigger their interest is in seeing that Europe remains stable and prosperous enough to pay those loans back.

Even in the supposedly isolationist 1920's in OTL the US quietly but (for a while) effectively worked to improve Anglo-French relations with Germany. This culminated in Locarno, which was at least seen by the Soviet Union as a move to create an anti-Soviet west-and-central-European bloc.

US isolationism is indeed a pernicious myth - a better description might be "US aversion to entanglements", which is an old Anglo-Saxon predilection.

I hadn't heard that the Soviets saw Locarno as being aimed against them...

fasquardon
 
I hadn't heard that the Soviets saw Locarno as being aimed against them...

"To the Soviets, Locarno was all about drawing Germany away from the USSR and eliminating the remaining obstacles to the emergence of an effective anti-Soviet bloc." https://books.google.com/books?id=7uiuBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA100

Aa it turned out, any Western hopes and Soviet fears on this account were exaggerated. Stresemann did not want Locarno to damage German relations with Moscow--hence the Treaty of Berlin (1926). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Berlin_(1926)
 
Top