America Without the World War, Cold War?

Counter-counterargument: sans WWII, protectionism is slower to end, and something like the EC will be delayed by decades if it ever comes about at all. Old-fashioned, craft-based industries are slower to modernize without the "start from scratch" situation after WWII. Countries not exhausted by war waste huge amounts of blood and treasure trying to hold onto colonial empires. Europe is not a pile of rubble in 1945, but the economic boom of OTL is not matched. Eastern Europe is probably better off, though, until a fresh round of Balkan Wars break out.

Bruce

Why would protectionism be slower to end? It caught on right quick OTL, and it's not like Adenauer and the rest somehow die in the course of the war. Moreover, dying in long, bloody struggle for empires? That's OTL. Just ask the Algerians.
 
But with no war, no red scare, and no real concerns internationally, the United States is going to go close to all butter and no guns. Expect the United States to be even stronger economically today (and the world) and more politically left--no fear of communism and Civil Rights handled in a gentlemanly fashion. There would be no hippie movement or socialistic counterculture--because it would be milder and mainstream.
.

"Civil rights handled in a gentlemanly manner".

HAH! You crack me up, BlueMax.

The USA is probably economy wanked. The United States achieves incredible levels of growth, perhaps going to 200% of today's economic strength. US Businesses, like General Motors, are not begging for bailouts--they are market leaders who know how to win and have done so for a very long time.

On the other hand, less of an expansion of the College system, no GI bill to give a whole generation a chance at a better education, no big push to beef up science sans a Sputnik scare, no big-scale gov investment in technological and medical developments (how much is spent by big business looking for a cure for Parkinson's disease compared to what they spend trying to find the next Viagra, I wonder?), a slower recovery sans the stimulus brought by the war...and what is to prevent OTLs degeneration of corporate leaders from people who actually know something about making good cars to stock-market watchers? OTL, the Big Three have been fucking up for _decades_, and quite likely weaker competition from abroad (protectionism, dontcha know? Plus, Japan is too busy in Project Unending Quagmire to spend much on improving their automobile industry) isn't going to help them improve.

The US might be richer, but it's not just going to automatically happen: there will have to be some sensible policy choices along the way, and people have a way of blowing their opportunities.

Bruce
 
Why would protectionism be slower to end? It caught on right quick OTL, and it's not like Adenauer and the rest somehow die in the course of the war. Moreover, dying in long, bloody struggle for empires? That's OTL. Just ask the Algerians.

Caught on right quick after something called WWII and the occupation of Eastern Europe by the USSR. "Hang together or hang seperately." A wee bit different situation.

As for colonial wars, without the economic exhaustion of WWII and without the US and USSR breathing down their necks, there's less incentive to change, and I expect things will get messier than OTL. If nukes have been developed by the 60's, I wonder if the French use them in any of their colonial wars?

Are the Soviets going to be a Bastion of Anti-Colonialism in this universe? If so, there might be a cold war of sorts between the USSR and the colonial powers, not least the Japanese...

Bruce
 
Plus, Japan is too busy in Project Unending Quagmire to spend much on improving their automobile industry) isn't going to help them improve.

Some thoughts. First, Japan's "operation unending quagmire" will end at some point, though how it ends, I grant, is unclear.

Second, America will be spending far, far less on the military in the ATL; I think 5% would be the top, not 10-15%. This will go somewhere, and a society with cash on hand might be tempted to build a Great Society.

Caught on right quick after something called WWII and the occupation of Eastern Europe by the USSR. "Hang together or hang seperately." A wee bit different situation

And yet we have Locarno, the Thoiry Discussions, and the leaders of France and Germany in 1929 making noises about some sort of economic arrangement. We have people throughout the 1930s talking about free trade. We have a generation that, push came to shove, was so afraid of war that a war psychosis gripped Nazi Germany.

I recognize the love of dystopias on ah.net, but just because George Washington is left handed doesn't mean that we'd live in the ruins of the Quaker Technate.
 
The real question is, how do you finally end the Depression without getting America fully into war-production mode necessitated by the war? That's why it's hard to answer.

My bet is something along these lines: bigger or more rather different New Deal programs (example: no GI bill, but Federally Subsidized Education Grants for all) combined with the trade boons of being the only economy geared for trade once the war is over and / or Lend Lease on Steriods. Note that in neither case am I saying that US Gov't spending actually increases to OTL WWII levels, simply that the New Deal changes and refines itself in order to keep voters satisfied that at the very least the safety net will be strengthened and improved. This simply means that as the economy recovers (probably over a longer period, perhaps through the 1950s), the safety net will stick around.

This altered New deal would leave a profound mark on American politics: consider, for example, that the primary reason why health care became an employer-funded benefit was due to wage and salary freezes during WWII. Without those freezes, a Truman-esque National Health Insurance plan (probably along the lines of the current Swiss model) might emerge quite easily. More so, since Cold War antipathy with communism won't be as marked. I'd consider the general trajectory of this movement to follow something like this: moderate Republicans take office in either 1940 or 1944. They change some of the New Deal programs, but leave many in place (if it's Wilkie, he makes it more pro-business; if it's Taft, he leaves in place some social programs like housing, etc). Essentially, the most crisis-oreinted efforts, like the WPA, fade in favor of more welfare-state oriented institutions that will form the bedrock of a future economic system. This prompts a new Democratic administration (possibly headed by Truman himself) that formalizes such programs and introduces new ones.

Now, positing the economic development of this alternate America is not without pitfalls. First, a major variable is the state of international fianance, free trade, and trade governing bodies. No American particiaption means no Bretton Woods or GATT to replace it. Whatever the settlement -- whether there's really not much of one or if the Europeans make one of their own -- it probably means that the development of world trade is slowed, somewhat, but will ultimately happens as companies and countries look for new markets. Second, is whether Europe is decimated enough to need a Marshall Plan which it won't get. I leave that an open question, but I'd guess the alt war probably isn't significant enough to require it.

Next, consider the lack of the baby boomers. Without American participation in the war, there'll be no return of the GIs and thus no pronounced rise in the number of births. On the surface, this may seem like a bad thing: no baby boomers means fewer consumers, which is not a good thing in a consumer driven economy. However, since we all will lack a pleasant 1950s with stable growth and the emergence of suburbans to house these people, we avoid a few things: first, we avoid the sense of OTL 1950s, namely that things were chugging along pretty well. Hence, on the political stage while the lack of WWII means that you won't have a Truman trying and succeeding in integrating the armed forces, you won't have (white) middle class America luxuriating in the idea that all is good and well with the world, their years of sacrifice and shortfall long past them.

Let's take this idea further: without WWII, you probably lack a military - industrial complex. No vast warehouses in Arkansas filled with surplus pajamas. On the other hand, you lack the man impetus behind Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System -- to move the army around. Granted, it's a great public works program for our evolved New Dealers, so I'm not proposing no highway system, merely a different one. That may not be such a bad thing, considering that OTL Highways killed the railroads and most particularly mass transit and so helped to usher in suburbia. If American cities remain dependent on mass transit for longer, they remain denser and American political attitudes will reflect it. Without suburbs to which to flee, you will either see more wholesale population movements or political change. This too has an impact on civil rights / politics: there's no room for white flight, for one, but so too is there a different tolerance for rioting. Indeed, since the original Levittowns were originally intended to provide mass appeal because they were cheap (rather than becasue they offered a "better" lifestyle), American cities may resemble European ones (Paris), with the slums / lower class areas on their outer rings, rather than their inner cores. That too will change the nature of political strife: will suburban slums be as apt to witnessing the erosion of the family? A loaded question, to say the least, but certainly poor suburban ethinc enclaves will have a different dynamic than OTL's poor urban ethinc enclaves.

On a big picture, by the mid-1950s, I imagine Europe is stable enough that American businesses will make inroads, regardless of the state of trade agreements. If noting else, they'll set up European subsidiaries and benefit from the chance at rock bottom capital investments. They will have to compete for business perhaps more cut-throatly, but that might not be too bad. Here, the US has no moral highground as the leader of the free world to protect, afterall.

One question may be whether TTL will see the broad gains in producivity which has seen the American economy grow over much of the last half-century. Firstly, it may not seem them as soon. Secondly, the labor movement is bound to be much different TTL, with differeing struggles with communism and without WWII to halt labor action. Perhaps the US adopts a German-style labor system, with labor unions more linked to management and thus workers more productive. Education may not get the boon it got with the GI bill, but it will still be important. Infrastructure will get built, if only because the US gov't in the 1940s and 1950s will be looking for more Keynesian programs.

In contrast to previous posters, I do not think that such a US will be less anti-colonialism in regard to its attitudes toward the ageing / crumbling European (and perhaps Japanese) Empires. I think quite the opposite will be true, at least among Democratic Administrations; Republicans might well tolerate more out of isolationsim/realpolitick. Nevertheless, the primary question here is whether the USSR exists and whether they've expanded their influence enough that there's something of a Cold War. Here, though, that War would be between Europe -- Britain and France and perhaps reconstructed Germany -- trying to hold together against the Evil Eastern Empire. The US would probably only begin to take a stand if China fell to the Communists. Even then, the US might be neutral; indeed, I could well see it leading a TTL's Non-Aligned Movment--what could better resonate with "traditional American isolatinism"? Such a movement would probably mean partnership with many of the anti-colonial, quasi-communist regimes of the Third World. And the US would of course feel great sympathy with these Republicans fighting against Monarchic / Corporatist Empires, since of course the US was the first such country.

To sum up, I don't think it's true to say that a USA that never fought WWII (because WWII was a different war) will be worse, better, less well-off or better well-of economically, politically, or socially. Rather, as in all things AH, it will be different first and foremost. The trajectory of something as complicated as the Civil Rights Movement is bound to be different: it may start later, but it may finish sooner as well, given the different nature of TTL. It may be wider in scope as well. Probably the most certain thing is that the US will stay fairly unactive in terms of military power. It may well invade / police some Latin American states, but not with anything like the resolve or ideological meddling of TTL's Cold War.
 
Last edited:
Women, OTOH. Hrmm. Rosie the Riveter proved oddly temporary.
However It should be noted that the Women that lead the Womens movement in the 70's were the Daughters of Rosie the Riveter, and grew up on their Mothers Stories of that time.
 
However It should be noted that the Women that lead the Womens movement in the 70's were the Daughters of Rosie the Riveter, and grew up on their Mothers Stories of that time.

Given that the bases of women's rights stem in the US stem from the 1850s at least (Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, etc.), you would probably get some kind of women's movement. Admittedly, "feminism" may be different in ideological content, depending on currents prevalent at the time.
 
Some thoughts. First, Japan's "operation unending quagmire" will end at some point, though how it ends, I grant, is unclear.

Messily, I think. One wonders if the Soviets will fund Chinese rebels - if so, there's likely to be a Japanese-Soviet war at some point.

Second, America will be spending far, far less on the military in the ATL; I think 5% would be the top, not 10-15%. This will go somewhere, and a society with cash on hand might be tempted to build a Great Society.

It might. Or vote bigger bonuses to corporate management. We had cash on hand in the 90's, too.

(15% of what, BTW? I don't think we ever hit 15% of GNP after WWII)

And yet we have Locarno, the Thoiry Discussions, and the leaders of France and Germany in 1929 making noises about some sort of economic arrangement. We have people throughout the 1930s talking about free trade.

Could you give me concrete examples of actual _results_? Also I had the impression this was a France and UK beat the Nazis TL, which might mean postwar arrangements might not be carried out in an entirely forgiving and mutually beneficial manner. (And that's if it's a _short_ war. If it's one which lasts till 1942, oy).

We have a generation that, push came to shove, was so afraid of war that a war psychosis gripped Nazi Germany.

When did I predict a major European war?

I recognize the love of dystopias on ah.net, but just because George Washington is left handed doesn't mean that we'd live in the ruins of the Quaker Technate.

Oh, I'd agree. I didn't say it would be an awful dystopia - I just said that the US isn't automatically going to be more prosperous than OTL just because we missed WWII, and the same for Europe. And the colonial wars probably won't leave scars much worse than Vietnam for the US. (I wonder: how much of a third rail is discussion of Algeria or Vietnam in today's France?)

It's highly probable (assuming no WWII* in, say, the 1980's) that Europeans and N. Americans in this ATL will look back at the 1920's and 1930's and think themselves waaay better off: there's a good chance they won't be as well off as OTL, that's all. And I'd say it's likely that a number of places - N. Korea, much of Eastern Europe, parts of Africa, Afghanistan - are noteably better off than OTL. China - depends on how long the Japanese stay and who ends up on top when they leave. SE Asia - well, Pot Pol was probably a low-probability event.

Soviets, hm. I see you have a new thread going on that one.

Bruce
 
Messily, I think. One wonders if the Soviets will fund Chinese rebels - if so, there's likely to be a Japanese-Soviet war at some point.

Why? Stalin was happy to see Japan bleed, and the Japanese were not quite that stupid.

It might. Or vote bigger bonuses to corporate management. We had cash on hand in the 90's, too.

(15% of what, BTW? I don't think we ever hit 15% of GNP after WWII)

Yes, that's an option. But your response to "could be used better" seems to be "could not!"

Maybe. But since I tend to think that people are pretty sharp on hand (and the 90s were good times.

A quick google: By contrast, defense spending averaged some 14 percent of the GDP in the Korean War, nearly 10 percent of the GDP during the Vietnam War, and more than 33 percent of the GDP during World War II.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/01/defense-spending-beacons/

Could you give me concrete examples of actual _results_? Also I had the impression this was a France and UK beat the Nazis TL, which might mean postwar arrangements might not be carried out in an entirely forgiving and mutually beneficial manner. (And that's if it's a _short_ war. If it's one which lasts till 1942, oy).

What were the Franco-British plans OTL?

But examples: Financial negotiations, which led to a restoration of a sort of financial standard in 1936-1938. The Young Plan. Significant tariff lowering, after 1933. The Oslo Pact. The 1938 Anglo-American Trade Agreement. There are other examples.

I also question World War 2 as a form of modernization for Europe. Yea, if you mind the loss of human capital, the economic decline in the war years, rationing aftewards, etc.
 
Ok,we assume that the bolsheviks have failed to keep te power,and the Russia is broken in more states.
And assume that Adolf Hitler was hit by a truck in 1925.
So September 1 1939 is a day like another in Europe.
And we tell that the Japanese not attack Pearl Harbour,
so nothing war in pacific.
What changes for the United States?
Well,a lot.
Nothing GI Bill,so college and society remains a more bit elitarian,
a more,more slow progress for civil rights,
no baby boomers and a different pop culture.
The tecnology:a more slow development for computers,jet planes,and many things related to military industry.
Nothing ICBM or space age (at the last until late XX-early XXI century).
There would be no suburbia,or interstate highway (a mayor development for railroads is probable).

but
hundreds of thousands of Americans would not be dead in WWII,Korea or Vietnam.

None military-industrial complex.
very,very,very less expenditure for this things and very less taxes (just imagine all that money for cold war that rest in America).
Television from 1941?
well,is probable,but i don't are sure.
So at the end you imagine this ATL in 1950s and 60s like a late 30s America without economic depression,and little more high tecnological level (like "the world of tomorrow in 1939 New york fair).

30323091kc2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Why? Stalin was happy to see Japan bleed, and the Japanese were not quite that stupid.

Well, the Japanese might actually find some sort of solution short of total victory they could live with, and the Soviets would of course want to see them _continue_ to bleed. Whether the Soviets find it worthwhile to "turn up the heat" depends very much on what the Japanese do after they realize that 1.) this isn't working 2.) the Germans aren't going to save the day for us by knocking out England and France.

And attacking the USSR (after "learning from their mistakes" from the border squabble) seems no dumber than attacking the US and UK together OTL, especially since the Soviets have no navy worth mentioning, limited communications with the Far East, have quite possibly been smacked around as OTL by the Finns, and the Japanese will be loudly cheered on by all sorts of folks, some of which might be willing to give them a price break on war supplies.

Yes, that's an option. But your response to "could be used better" seems to be "could not!"

It's a matter of probability, I suppose. Call me a sour old cynic, but considering how abominably stupid and greedy much of our supposed "leadership" has become since the counterreaction to the 60's gave the Right their In, I wouldn't give the "did better than OTL" timeline better than a 50% chance. If winning WWII strengthened Stalin's regime, it also greatly stengthened those forces in the US who wanted to use the power of the government for good: if the US gov could beat the Japanese and the Nazis, save Europe from economic ruin, build the atom bomb, etc., what else might we do to help our own citizens?

Maybe. But since I tend to think that people are pretty sharp on hand (and the 90s were good times.

?

A quick google: By contrast, defense spending averaged some 14 percent of the GDP in the Korean War, nearly 10 percent of the GDP during the Vietnam War, and more than 33 percent of the GDP during World War II.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/01/defense-spending-beacons/
.

Ah - forgot the Korean war. Perhaps I should have said "when not actually fighting a war", which was after all the majority of the Cold War. And WWII did a lot to finish the job of getting the US out of the Depression.

What were the Franco-British plans OTL?

But examples: Financial negotiations, which led to a restoration of a sort of financial standard in 1936-1938. The Young Plan. Significant tariff lowering, after 1933. The Oslo Pact. The 1938 Anglo-American Trade Agreement. There are other examples..


Ok, ok, you have a point - there were moves in that direction. I still find something like the EU happening as soon and as comprehensively (for those areas not behind the Iron Curtain, anyway) as OTL unlikely.

I also question World War 2 as a form of modernization for Europe. Yea, if you mind the loss of human capital, the economic decline in the war years, rationing aftewards, etc.

And of course South America, with it's lack of major wars, has prospered amazingly since 1900. :D:D (Now, the UK might have done better, at least in the short-to-medium term, sans WWII - and I'll have to note it did _worse_ post-WWII in terms of economic growth than the French and Germans, in spite of being much less devastated by the war.) France, whose political woes are unlikely to be solved at a stroke by a victory over Germany, especially if it's a long and bloody fight? Once-again-kicked-in-the-teeth Germany? (Will the British and French step in with a "Marshall Plan" to rebuild the German economy?) Italy,still burdened with it's Fascist incubus? Not so sure re the medium-long term.

Bruce
 
Last edited:
Top