Challenge: 4 way cold war

How hard is it to realize that Britain didn't surrender to the US? All that happened was that the British Empire had to face the Geopolitical and Economic reality of the post-war world. They can no longer act as the world's superpower and policeman. What the UK did is more like a "retirement" than a "surrender". The UK had become small potatoes compared to the United States and Soviet Union. They realized this and made sure the United States would come out on the world stage to fight the USSR once WW2 was over, instead of going Isolationist. Your first two examples could be perfect examples of this because one gives the US bases all over the world for Military power projection while giving the UK needed ships for its Navy and the other would get the United States to have a sizable presence on the world stage after WW2, while securing an agreement for the nature of the post-war world when the war was going through uncertain times.

Your last example is getting Economic cooperation between the US and the western world for after the war

Whether you call it a "retirement" or a "surrender", the fact is that after WWII the UK has not been able to act as an independent player on the world stage. The Suez crisis is a case in point. Their colonies were opened up to American investment and trade through decolonization. The Americans took over the role of dominant naval power. The UK was reduced the the US's junior partner in the new Western Order, and would no longer pursue it's own national interests abroad if they conflicted with American interests.
 
This doesn't have to be the case, Britain could look across the channel and side with France post Suez. Britain and France are equals in a way that Britain can't be with the US and between them they have a lot of power and influence.
 
OK - Democracy/Fascism/Communism/Islamism

Islamism. ^^

Germany is still more of regional power, because there's no way it kept it's colonies. And you didn't mention a European Federation type thing with Germany leading.

As for the theocracy state, I don't see the USSR or the USA letting it get up.

Theocracy?...
Technocratic dictatorship?

Same two I was thinking of.
 
why must each "side" have his own "unique" approach?
Multiple (not aligned) countries could act as independent players while sharing a similar ideologies.
e.g. 1970 CCCP-China, or 1960 USA-France, or 2000 Afghanistan-Iran (I know, shia-sunni and all...)
 
why must each "side" have his own "unique" approach?
Multiple (not aligned) countries could act as independent players while sharing a similar ideologies.
e.g. 1970 CCCP-China, or 1960 USA-France, or 2000 Afghanistan-Iran (I know, shia-sunni and all...)

The word "ideology" is key. "Democracy" is not an ideology, it's a way of life and a form of government. "Capitalism" isn't an ideology in most parts of the world (although it seems to be in the Republican party and some other political groups I could mention). "Communism" very definitely is one, as is fundamentalist religion - and when you have an ideology, you have heretics...and heresy, being a betrayal of the True Faith, is often worse than merely following a false religion.

Bruce
 
The key is avoiding Barbarossa, if the Molotov-Ribbentrop borders remain intact, the UK will eventualy make peace with Germany, and Germany will rule the European continent.
That gives you three sides, a fourth side might be Maoist China, if the CCP still comes to power in China, and Hruschev, or some other anti-stalinist comes to power, Mao will break with the Soviet Union.

So we have four sides US/UK alliance, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Maoist China
 
"Capitalism" isn't an ideology in most parts of the world (although it seems to be in the Republican party and some other political groups I could mention).

It's still an ideology, it's just been the dominant one for a long time.
 
The word "ideology" is key. "Democracy" is not an ideology, it's a way of life and a form of government. "Capitalism" isn't an ideology in most parts of the world (although it seems to be in the Republican party and some other political groups I could mention). "Communism" very definitely is one, as is fundamentalist religion - and when you have an ideology, you have heretics...and heresy, being a betrayal of the True Faith, is often worse than merely following a false religion.

Bruce

I'm sorry I did not understand:
1) why do you think "democracy" is not an ideology, and
2) what this ("democracy" being or not beig an ideology) has to do with the fact that you can have different nations sharing the same "view of the world", while at the same time being military rivals.
could you please explain?
 
Last edited:
Top