ATL: Potsdam, Yalta, and others go differently and the Cold War goes down a weird path

This is an alternate timeline in which a bunch of conferences, treaties, wars, and other stuff that defined the Cold War are done differently (however unrealistic they may be), causing a snowball effect that would make the Cold War go very differently (and also very wacky). This is my first big timeline, I hope you guys like it!


The World in 1953.

Here's the divides/wars/treaties/etc. that went differently, you can give feedback about this if you want:
* Vietnam War results in a Korean War-like situation, North and South Vietnam are grave enemies, mostly communist defeat and no Khmer Rouge or Laotian Civil War
* Korean War results in the North sweeping through Korea, giant communist victory and decline in Democratic popularity in the US due to Truman's failure to win
* Battle of Hainan results in Kuomintang victory, strong US hold is established over the Pacific and tensions are much higher
* Jinnah never achieves Muslim independence from India, resulting in a much less stable and divided Republic of India
* Tibet isn't annexed by China, causing it to ally itself with the US and become an exile for oppressed groups in the PRC
* Nasser forms a United Arab Republic with Yemen, Jordan, Syria and Palestine in it by the late 50s, he eventually unites the Middle East
(Note: Israel was sided against by NATO and Palestine did win the 1948 war)
* Romania keeps Bessarabia in exchange for half of Polish land taken during the Moscow Conference in 1944
* West and East Austria are formed out of the Allied and Soviet occupation zones in a manner similar to West and East Germany
* Italy keeps Istria after a referendum
How does the Cold War get altered further by this? I don't know, you discuss!


You need to make Duy Tan, Emperor of Vietnam, survive and reach Vietnam and become Emperor of the South (the situation in the South is much better without the problems of legitimacy)

A Laos that does not become communist is a bit difficult (you need to reduce North Vietnam and become confined to Tonkin to make Laos less affected by communism and avoid it because the current borders make Laos completely adjacent to the communists)

You need to change events after 1930 in order to avoid division (by the 1940s it became inevitable, not how, but)

Sorry, but Nasser's accession to power with the 1948 war, which ends with an Arab victory, is simply ASB, and it is impossible for it to happen (I am an Arab, and I assure you of this that he will not reach without losing against Israel).

(The Arab victory means the survival of the Egyptian monarchy and is not tarnished by the loss, and this means the rise of leftist Arab nationalism, and the Middle East remains a monarchy, and this is the best scenario for the Middle East and the monarchy)

Bessarabia remains Romanian, it is difficult unless Beria is made president of the Soviet Union (he wanted to keep Bessarabia Romanian and wanted to return Vyborg to Finland and even Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands to Japan and a unified, neutral Germany)

An independent Tibet needs to make the Soviets want more buffer states, to make them support Tibet, and Tibet becomes Switzerland, not an ally of the West.
I see at least one implausible scenarios in the OP

That one is an independent Tibet and an undivided India. In the first years after partition, OTL India was not really in either camp at the moment as it was lead by the centre-leftist Nehru.
I don't think Nehru, who still lead India in the ATL,would allow the US to pass through his country.
And India is pretty much the only last remaining route Tibet. As such, US allyship with Tibet means nothing because the US can't stop Mao. Even if the the US were able to send troops there, they wouldn't.
Considering the terrain of Tibet, the US would decide it isn't worth it at all.
The only other solution for Tibet is a coastal invasion of the PRC: almost impossible given the high costs.

With regards to the KMT.
I see Chiang Kai-Shek having a larger territory would stir Mao to plan and carry out an actual invasion. Mao would wait until he gets the atom bomb but keeps it a secret for leverage against the US.

In 1965 he strikes, the PRC which has far suprassed the KMT militarily by this point mounts an invasion. Mao gives orders for his troops to avoid attacking US troops first. When LBJ mobilizes the troops stationed there to defend the KMT, Mao not only reveals he has the A-bomb but has sent one to the lands he's invading, which he can detonate at any time. A Cuban Missile crisis 2.0 then happens. However the unwavering Mao faces down with an LBJ who knows the odds are against him. LBJ withdraws all US troops from KMT lands.

The KMT government falls and Chiang Kai-Shek flees to the US. This incident is a major blow to US prestige amidst the ongoing Vietnam war.

Internationally, China is still represented at the UN by the KMT. Which causes a major international controversy since many see the KMT government in exile essentially functioning like a second US seat on the security council.
In my view this uproar leads to the UN declaring that governments in exile don't get representation. The PRC ends up becoming the recognized Chinese government in the late 60s instead of the late 70s.

Obviously the US never normalizes relations with China during Mao's lifetime. Thus the Sino Soviet split simply simmers instead of both sides being opposed to each other as in the OTL.

The end result of all this in this ATL is that offshoring of jobs to China happens a few years later.

Last edited:
The notion of partitioning India would not die with independence. In my view, it would come about via far more bloodier means than what happened in the OTL.

In this ATL, immediate post-independence India is plagued by communal violence against Muslims and Muslim parties being thorn in India's political systems. In this scenario, the Pakistan Liberartion Army(PLA) forms, taking its name from the state Jinnah had fought for.

Initially an insurgency begins. It quickly escalates. Once the PLA has enough land and weapons, a full blown semi conventional war. This is the Pakistani War of Liberation. It would probably pop off by 1960.
The PLA are divided into 3 sections: West, East and South. The Western portion fights around OTL Pakistan. The East fights in the Bengal as well as the Hindi heartland. The Southern portion fights in Kerala.

India largely finds itself in the position Pakistan did during the Bangladeshi War of Liberation. Except the get basically no aid at all. The PLA gets backing from the Gulf monarchies and individual Arabs from secular states. The years of instability give rise to a weak Indian army. By 1963, the Indian army is on the run as the PLA advances

The weakened Indian army has no time to committ large scale atrocities. The PLA however does in their pursuit of a Muslim homeland. The Muslim fighters give the Hindus and other religious groups a choice: convert or death. The program leads to a straight uo genocide against Hindus by the PLA.

In 1963, the entire states of Bengal and some in the West have fallen. Kerala, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are heavily contested. Realizing the futility of fighting and the need to end the violence. The Indian government negotiates 1963 Delhi accords. In it India recognizes the Muslims independence. Secondly the PLA and India negotiate a mutual exchange; all Muslims are to be deported to PLA lands and all religious minorities are deportesld India.

Regarding the PLA, they would dissolve and form 3 countries: West Pakistan, East Pakistan and South Pakistan. A united country of 3 exclaves being deemed unfeasible. Since they were born out of a Muslim movement, the 3 Pakistans would eventually implement some Islamic laws like OTL Zia did.

In general the formation of the 3 Pakistans is hailed as a victory for Islam and would end up increase opposition to secular regimes across the Islamic world.

My last post is concerning Nasser.

On key component that kept the secular Arab nationalist leaders on the same page was opposition to Israel.
If Israel is defeated from the getgo, Arab nationalists would have a hard to cooperating.

Assuming Nasser subjugates Syria in the union and invades Palestine and Jordan. His popularity takes a beating. He would be seen as fighting wars for no reason.
More importantly, Nasser's secularism becomes his achilles heel. With no Israel hating to begrudgingly support Nasser over. The conservative Arabs become a problem for Nasser.

And here is where my notion of 3 Pakistans comes in. The 3 Pakistans provide asylum for Arab Islamists fleeing Nasser, much to his annoyance. In exile the Islamists freely plot against him. In 1966 after Sayyid Qutb is executed(still happens in this ATL), Nasser and his entourage are assassinted revenge. This leads to a civil which the Islamists eventually win by the mid 70s with the support of the Gulf monarchs and the Pakistans.

Internationally, this results in the US taking Islamic fundamentalism seriously earlier than they did in the OTL. The US would likely warn the Shah of such a threat and beef him up. Meaning the Iranian revolution likely never happens.

Overall, the Middle East would be filled with pariahs alongside the blacklisted 3 Pakistans.