Anglo American society with long WW 2

WI The second World war lasted to 1948 to 1950. I am thinking of maybe the Nazis having postponed Barbarossa until Britain is defeated and yet somehow going to war with the US.

I see the Pacific War having gone roughly as in OTL. The big exeption being no Soviet involvment.

I assume that the Nazis have enough control of the air to make it unwise to use nuclear weapons.

I think, that even with some economic support from Stalin, the US/UK would so outproduce the Nazis that they would eventually lose.

What happens inside the US and UK

I perceive the role of women might be different.

The British Welfare state in formal terms would be postponed. However there was a large welfare element in Britain's war economy.


I wonder whether there would have been a 1946 Republican triumph.
 
There's a lot to consider. I'm not sure I'd make the same assumptions you have.

First, where we I agree:

I can accept that events in the Pacific will develop pretty much as OTL. Japan can't win and I see nothing in your scenario to suggest the Nazi-Soviet alliance would necessarily have reason to help them any more than in OTL...although it might get interesting if Japan becomes part of what amounts to be an "Eastasian/Eurasian" alliance against "Oceania".

I could also see the allies accepting something far less than unconditional surrender from Japan ... maybe even accepting an armistice similar to what was offered Italy in OTL.

I also expect that a war like this would have a number of effects on both the USA and UK that would make them more conservative than in OTL (economically, socially, and in terms of race/gender equality). Britain would consider preservation of the Empire essential, and putting the USSR in what amounts to be the enemy camp, would completely discredit strongly left-leaning movements in both the US and UK. This would adversely effect all causes seen as revolutionary of leftist, such as racial equality, economic levelling, expanded women's rights - unless they were taken up by non-leftist organizations such as corporations or the church. This is possible, I suppose. By "republican triumph" are you talking about the US political party or disestablishment of the royal familiy in Britain? In the first case, my answer is yes, in the second most definitately no.

You seem to be imagining a war around the periphery of the Nazi-Soviet landmass (the middle east, North Africa, Scandinavia, maybe even the over the remnants of the former Japanese Empire) rather than an allied attempt to invade Europe massively and hastily. This makes sense to me.

Now where we disagree:

First, If the Nazi and Soviet non-aggression pact survives they would form an economic block at least as strong as the UK/US alliance, especially when one considers that, even in the 1940's the Empire was more of a drain on Britain than an asset. I tend to think that the UK/US would see this block as a much more significant threat to their survival than either Germany or the USSR alone. I am not convinced the allies would feel secure in the faith they could outproduce them.

Second, I believe this would hasten, not retard the development and deployment of atomic weapons by the US/UK alliance. While you may be right that allied control of the air over western Europe might be less certain, I don't see why that would inhibit the use of nuclear weapons - they'd just be used differently - possibly in areas where local air superiority coud be temporarily obtained. First, I'm not sure nuclear weapons would be used on a prostrate Japan at all in this TL, when the real enemy is still out there and very powerful, so the very existence of these weapons would be unkown to the enemy. Because of the risks of having bombers trying to reach Berlin with atomic weapons could lead to their capture, I suggest that the allies might chose to use these weapons, not as demonstration city killers, but as the immediate prelude a high-stakes military operation such as an invasion of western Europe. The "shock and awe" provided by the detonation of a dozen or so 35 kiloton bombs among German defenses and rear areas in Normandy would not only decimate the defences but might have unanticipated effects on the loyalty of Nazi satellites such as France and Italy, plus make the Russians begin to rethink the wisdom of their alliance with Germany. Since the dangers of radiation and fallout would be only poorly appreciated, US and British forces would pour ashore against an already defeated defending force. By the time the allies realized that they had underestimated risks to their own people from radiation exposure, the front line German forces would already be defeated and fresh alied forces better equipped and trained to avoid "hot" areas would be coming ashore. Lots of poshumous medals for the initial wave though.

Probably a more likely outcome of the geopolitical world you describe, however, is just a different sort of Cold War. The Angloshphere Alliance may decide that the cost to defeat a Nazi/Soviet alliance is just too much, offer an armistice to Hitler, hope that they two dictators will eventually fall out and fight to the death, and then pick the time and place to finish them off.
 
Because of the risks of having bombers trying to reach Berlin with atomic weapons could lead to their capture,

Oh lord, not the captured nukes idea again. That's simply a complete nonfactor. Not only is it close to impossible to recover a nuke from a shot down bomber falling from 30k feet (since a guntype bomb would almost certainly detonate anyway, while even minor warping would render a plutonium type useless), this whole thing can be simply brushed aside by fuzing the bomb to detonate once it gets too low.

And again, I need to point out that with nukes we are talking the kind of calculus made by SAC in the 50s, when small numbers of bombers were expected to make unescorted attacks directly in the face of Soviet air superiority over their own territory. Losses, obviously, were expected to be extremely high, but its just not realistic to achieve sufficient levels of air supremacy to make nuclear attacks impractical. And of course, since we are not talking 50s technology meaning nighttime attacks are extremely difficult to intercept, losses would be nowhere near what SAC expected, even if the Germans are able to maintain air superiority over their core territories.

I could also see the allies accepting something far less than unconditional surrender from Japan ... maybe even accepting an armistice similar to what was offered Italy in OTL.

I see no reason for that. Starving Japan out would have worked with or without atomic weapons and doing so would not use much resources that would be applicable to defeating Germany. Full on invasion was pretty much abandoned OTL and I see no reason for it not to be TTL as well.

...

As for the actual topic, I think a major question that must be answered is the position of the USSR at the end. If it sees its chance and backstabs Germany/Japan at the end and is still able to grab a good sphere of influence, I see bad things for the W Allies. The USSR would be a lot stronger while the WAllies would be weaker, with the UK reduced to an economic appendage of the U.S. and nuked out Europe to rebuild. Whether or not there is a cold war and just how cold it is would be a critical factor in the way society develops.
 
Oh lord, not the captured nukes idea again. That's simply a complete nonfactor. Not only is it close to impossible to recover a nuke from a shot down bomber falling from 30k feet (since a guntype bomb would almost certainly detonate anyway, while even minor warping would render a plutonium type useless), this whole thing can be simply brushed aside by fuzing the bomb to detonate once it gets too low.

Oh lord, not the refutation of the captured nukes idea again. I'm not arguing that intact nukes would be captured and used. In the scenario described the concern would be that German analysis of wreckage would allow them to infer the existence of such weapons and either reinvigorate their own programs or plan better countermeasures. Yes they might detonate anyway if fused appropriately. But the detonation of a device at the wrong time or place might not be desired.
 
If the Germans manage to "infer the existence/possibility" of atomic weapons by capturing one that has been attempted to be dropped on them, it is already far, far too late for them. After all, OTL the Soviets KNEW atomic weapons were possibly in August 1945, had an ongoing program, and had a major espionage campaign that was producing results for them, and it STILL took them another 4 years to detonate a bomb.
 
To address the OP, I think we would have seen the full integration of the military in order to make up the manpower shortage that would inevitably resulted, assuming the US chose to maintain it's industrial production to a level similar to OTL. Since Truman integrated the Army in 1948 anyway, it's not too much of a leap for him to do it in, say, 1946 given the need to do so, keeping in mind that it was NOT a military necessity in 1948 and he still did it.

This might actually be SMOOTHER than it was historically, because the racists who opposed such a move could not be seen as opposing the war effort. If the war lasts through 1950 (don't see how, given US atomic monopoly from 1945 onward, but whatever), there is just no way to maintain civil segregation with millions of desegregated black soldiers demobilizing.
 
To address the OP, I think we would have seen the full integration of the military in order to make up the manpower shortage that would inevitably resulted, assuming the US chose to maintain it's industrial production to a level similar to OTL. Since Truman integrated the Army in 1948 anyway, it's not too much of a leap for him to do it in, say, 1946 given the need to do so, keeping in mind that it was NOT a military necessity in 1948 and he still did it.

This might actually be SMOOTHER than it was historically, because the racists who opposed such a move could not be seen as opposing the war effort. If the war lasts through 1950 (don't see how, given US atomic monopoly from 1945 onward, but whatever), there is just no way to maintain civil segregation with millions of desegregated black soldiers demobilizing.

You could look at CalBear's scenario for how a conventional war might shape up after all. I mean, if anyone on this board could create a plausible long WWII scenario, it's probably him.
 
True, but I expressed my opinion in his thread - great scenario EXCEPT that I can't see the US NOT using an atomic monopoly to try to end the war. The fact of the matter is that in order to create an interesting scenario, or at least an interesting endgame, you have to find some way to force the US not to drop The Bomb as many times as it would have taken to win the war.

I don't find that to be a reasonable hypothesis absent ASBs, but let's not rehash that argument here.

OTOH, I don't recall CalBear addressing the integration of the armed forces. Is there a reason this would NOT have been a possibility?
 
Top