Challenge: 3 Way Cold War

Have not just two, but THREE superpowers, all opposed to the other two in ideals. Bonus points if the third isn't something obvious like Fascism or Maoism.

So is it possible? Also, this isn't like another thread because the start can be far earlier, but also because all three have to oppose the other two equally.
 
I have it. The United States, allied with the UK is the capitalist centre. The Empire of Greater Japan, allied with a coalition of European Fascist states and Russia (having made a deal over the Far East) being the militaristic corporatist (not all Fascists) centre. Finally, a Communist Germany, allied with a Third Balkan Entente, the socialist half of France, Mossadegh's Iran, and several puppet regimes in Eastern Europe, as the Communist centre. South America, Africa and Malaya are the primary battlegrounds. There are several minor powers (the Balkan Entente, The fascist Pact of Sevilla, the UK) that are mainly aligned with one superpower, but swing a little bit.
 
That could work, although sucks for the Communist states in the long run with nukes involved for Eastern Russia is where most Russian resources are, it being Siberia.
 
As I said, this one is different because you can have an earlier POD, and because I require that all three be opposed to the other two idealogically.
 
That could work, although sucks for the Communist states in the long run with nukes involved for Eastern Russia is where most Russian resources are, it being Siberia.

It does, but Russia is even smaller that OTL Russian Federation. No Caucasus, no Sakhalin Island,
 
Old-fashioned Imperialist China (tweak Hendryk's creation a few shades darker) vs. Commie Soviet Union extending deep into Europe after a different *WWII vs. Liberal-left democratic variant US.

Anti-religious US (see Mathuen's TL) vs also anti-religious but Red Europe vs capitalist but Hindu-nationalist *fascist India and Emperor-worshipping Japanese allies.

Bruce
 
Have Eden tell Eisenhower to fuck off during the Suez Crisis.


Eisenhower then cuts off Britain's credit, an oil embargo goes into place, and the British freeze and starve. 1956 is waaay too late for the British Empire to make a comeback: Suez is not the cause of British decline, it's a symptom.

If they go in whole hog on United Europe allied with the French, (may need DeGaulle falling down some stairs) we might see an EU under Anglo-French leadership become a third superpower a few decades down the road, but the British were hardly in shape to throw their weight around at that time.

Bruce
 
If they go in whole hog on United Europe allied with the French, (may need DeGaulle falling down some stairs) we might see an EU under Anglo-French leadership become a third superpower a few decades down the road, but the British were hardly in shape to throw their weight around at that time.

Bruce

That's what I was going for in a mini TL I made. The British try to hold on to their empire for a little longer, fail, and then join a European bloc started by France that's independent from both the Soviet Union and the United States.
 
European block starts neutral?

Assuming De Gaulle and Churchill meet unfortunate ends just after the war, it might be possible. EuroBlock takes a socialist leaning (not implausible - the Labour victory in 45 is a start), decides rebuilding is more important than sabre rattling.
EuroBlock sets a course of appeasement with certain problem areas at first, such as relations with India, some colonies, largely to keep them at least friendly, whilst courting other European nations. BeNeLux would be an easy win, possibly Italy. A neutral stance might appeal to Scandinavia, maybe even the Swiss. The US goes more isolationist, seeing themselves sidelined by Europe's neutrality.
Later on, once more established, perhaps the 60's, the right wing makes a return, takes a more hardline position and re-arms to stand as a more interventionist capitalist state (opposing the US increased isolationism), and finally taking a stand against communist oppression in the east.
It's probably not quite ASB, but would require tweaks to both European and US politics in the immediate post-war era.
 
But that isn't quite opposing the US, certainly not idealogical grounds, which is the whole point here, to get three superpowers, each one opposing the other two on idealogical grounds. Hence, you can't have two traditional capitalist states, unless one of them becomes opposed to the others for idealistic reasons(one is a social democracy, while the other perhaps is laize-fair could work.)
 
. Hence, you can't have two traditional capitalist states, unless one of them becomes opposed to the others for idealistic reasons(one is a social democracy, while the other perhaps is laize-fair could work.)

Well, considering that the Republicans OTL seem to think Obama's occasional vague nod in the direction of Social Democratic ideas indicates the Gulag is just around the corner, think of how they would take a superpowered Sweden-equivalent... :D

Bruce
 
You know, that's actually an insanely good idea. However, super powered Sweden is pretty unlikely. But, considering their model already spread to Europe in many ways, perhaps if those elements are emphasized...

Edit: In all likelyhood though, it would just through international peer pressure(I know, sounds odd, but roll with it) force America to become more like Europe.
 
Top