Culture of the 1940s without WW2

Also, per the OP, what "mild conflicts" are permitted?

If the Soviets and whoever is in charge of Germany join up to take big bites out of Poland, but it doesn't provoke Britain and France to war and there's still a Poland at the end of it (minus the Corridor and some eastern bits), is that permitted?
 
With regard to the USSR: they were very, very, very afraid of a capitalist alliance against them, and always tried to divide Germany from the status-quo powers - first by siding with us, then with the Germans.

Its far from given everyone will jump to save Poland. Nobody east of Saarbrucken liked the Second Republic, and if Stalin plays his cards right, he might get away with inforcing at least the Curzon line.
 
IBC,

1. The Soviets also made attempted territory grabs in Iran and Turkey, but were forced to back down from those.

Turkey was the ex-Russian empire/the ex-Russian empire's favourite irredentist hobby-horse. Late Tsarist Russia had extremely overbearing influence in northern Iran. Also Manchuria, where Stalin may well have wanted to set up a client-state.

And they also occupied much of eastern Europe and refused to leave, as well as leaving masses of captured Japanese gear for the ChiComs in Manchuria.

Oh, speak of the devil. Of course, it wasn't exactly likely for them to take away weapons from their ideological brethren. Of course the Soviets occupied eastern Europe as a safeguard against Germany, and plundered it to rebuild the damage of the war. Without the war, that question vanishes.

2. Sending arms and advisors is not the same as the threat of a pan-European anti-Communist crusade against the USSR if they step one foot out of their European borders.

And 1919, when thousands of young men are dead and the financial resources are running out, is not the late 30s. Given that the Entente did send troops to some other theatres of the Big Eastern Mess...

Stalin could easily do some cost-benefit analysis and decide that if that's all the Red Army has to worry about, another war with Poland might be doable.

Well, if he wasn't a paranoiac, maybe.
 
Its far from given everyone will jump to save Poland. Nobody east of Saarbrucken liked the Second Republic, and if Stalin plays his cards right, he might get away with inforcing at least the Curzon line.

The Soviet invasion of Finland was enough to get the Brits and French prepping bombing campaigns in the Caucasus. And unlike Finland, Poland is the cornerstone of French influence in Eastern Europe.

Sure, it's quite possible that Stalin can snaffle the Curzon Line. And then? What, the rest of Europe does nothing?
 

Susano

Banned
With regard to the USSR: they were very, very, very afraid of a capitalist alliance against them, and always tried to divide Germany from the status-quo powers - first by siding with us, then with the Germans. Without Nazis, German-French warfare is a pretty remote prospect, Anglo-German warfare remoter remoter still. The Soviets will be on their tippie-toes in Europe.
Hm. Maybe. But then, no "next landwar in Europe" doesnt mean happiness, sunshine and an EU equivalent ;) Playing FaeelinBot again ;) it seems there is still much room for economic tensions - German economical dominance in East Europe, the Stirling Bloc, those kinds of things. And as such, it is not entirely unreasonable if Germany were to, hm, keep open and pragmatic relations to the USSR...

Now, to get back to society and culture :D , and again specific German society:
The 50s have often been described as the "mobile Biedermeyer", a time of retreatment from politics into the private sphere, just with CARS! now. And TV, I guess, eventually. This of course was a direct reaction to the political desaster of the Nazis, and even though the student unrests of the late 60s did much to end that phase (why in my opinion they remain to be remembered as a good thing), I think that sentiments remained to a large degree very much around in the Federal Republic. Which is why we have political elites doing whatever the hell they want and the people just taking it. Now, without Nazism, however - could there be more, hm, potential to resistance in Germany? Maybe a Germany slightly more like France with its strikes and protests? ;)

Sure, it's quite possible that Stalin can snaffle the Curzon Line. And then? What, the rest of Europe does nothing?

Well, you know my answer to that :D
 
Hm. Maybe. But then, no "next landwar in Europe" doesnt mean happiness, sunshine and an EU equivalent ;) Playing FaeelinBot again ;) it seems there is still much room for economic tensions - German economical dominance in East Europe, the Stirling Bloc, those kinds of things. And as such, it is not entirely unreasonable if Germany were to, hm, keep open and pragmatic relations to the USSR...

Oh, definately so. I think that the international politics of the 40s and 50s would be quite unlike anything in OTL: a very multipolar world, with about eight great powers contending in various places, but doing so with the methods of the superpower cold war.
 
Sure, it's quite possible that Stalin can snaffle the Curzon Line. And then? What, the rest of Europe does nothing?

No. Stalin doesnt annex any further. If he goes for the "mild" gains and doesnt threat the rest of Europe, he could theoretically get away with it. If he makes Germany feel safe about his expansion (a piece of the Polish cake), the Wallies will have to come for him. And I doubt they would be willing a Barbarossa-type push.
 
No. Stalin doesnt annex any further. If he goes for the "mild" gains and doesnt threat the rest of Europe, he could theoretically get away with it. If he makes Germany feel safe about his expansion (a piece of the Polish cake), the Wallies will have to come for him. And I doubt they would be willing a Barbarossa-type push.

Barbarossa is physically impossible. Bombing Baku? Not even the imminent threat of Nazis could banish the idea.
 
Barbarossa is physically impossible. Bombing Baku? Not even the imminent threat of Nazis could banish the idea.

And where do you go from there? Where do the glorious Entante liberators land? If the Entante bomb Baku, the Soviets arent moving back unless there is this huge capitalist army ammasing near their positions ready to invade. If Stalin neutralises the ability of the Entante to attack him by isolating Poland and his gains, he can just sit back and show his middle finger at the parts of the map representing Paris and London.
 
And where do you go from there? Where do the glorious Entante liberators land? If the Entante bomb Baku, the Soviets arent moving back unless there is this huge capitalist army ammasing near their positions ready to invade. If Stalin neutralises the ability of the Entante to attack him by isolating Poland and his gains, he can just sit back and show his middle finger at the parts of the map representing Paris and London.

And then? What's the point? Stalin has acquired Tarnopol in return for alienating the west and encouraging rapproachment between Germany and the Western powers.

Edit: And plans to bomb Baku entailed bases in Syria and Iraq, while some in Turkey experessed interest in hosting bases.
 
And then? What's the point? Stalin has acquired Tarnopol in return for alienating the west and encouraging rapproachment between Germany and the Western powers.

Edit: And plans to bomb Baku entailed bases in Syria and Iraq, while some in Turkey experessed interest in hosting bases.

You mean alienating the same west that treated the SU as a international pariah? And I think in one of my posts you will find that I mentioned keeping Germany out of his enemy list.

So the Entante are attacking through the Caucasus? Good luck.
 

Susano

Banned
You mean alienating the same west that treated the SU as a international pariah?
Well, thats the point. Not Germany, for the most part. And without any real military alliance directed against the USSR. But if Stalin appears more threatening by using such stunts, it could happen.
 
Well, thats the point. Not Germany, for the most part. And without any real military alliance directed against the USSR. But if Stalin appears more threatening by using such stunts, it could happen.

An alliance againt Stalin? Of course.

A land war against Stalin for the sake of Poland and the Balts? Im afraid not.
 

Biggy

Banned
Its far from given everyone will jump to save Poland. Nobody east of Saarbrucken liked the Second Republic, and if Stalin plays his cards right, he might get away with inforcing at least the Curzon line.
Actually, Poland had very friendly relationship with both Hungary and Romania. In the case of Romania both countries had military alliance in case of war with Soviet Union. In case of war against the USSR of either of these countries, the other side was obliged to start combat against the USSR with minimum 14 infantry divisions and 2 cavalry divisions within 18 - 28 days.


Polish war with Soviet Union would be different from the war in 1939 with German
*The terrain in the East is ideal for defense-swamps, forests and very little transportation infrastructure
*Poland prepared for defense against Soviet Union since 1920s, the plans for war with Germany were barely prepared when the war started
*there was an impressive line of fortifications in the East prepared for defensive war, nothing like that in the West
*the Soviets had poorly trained soldiers, in 1939 they had problems fighting with Polish civilian militias

In the long turn the sheer number and potential of Soviet forces would outweight Polish strenghts, but the campaign would be difficult and longer.

Plus I think that most conservative elements of European politics would get the idea of "Bolshevik tide trying to conquer Europe". So the conflict wouldn't be so localised. Since both Romania and Poland-both cornerstones of French politics would be involved, France would likely get involved as well. Support from Italy, Hungary is certain.
 
One "Mild conflict" might be Japanese intervention in the Chinese Revolution; perhaps they support Mao in a "War of liberation". They'd certainly have no incentive to leave Manchuria now, either. They might also invade Korea by 1950.
 

Quatermain

Banned
Without WWII, would there have been the impetus for that world to develop nuclear weapons that we saw? If I recall correctly, before and in the early years of the war, scientists were working on the theory(if not the application) in a 'hey, you never know what we might be able to use this for' kind of way, but it was the war, and more importantly the knowledge that the Nazis were pursuing nuclear weapons, that kicked the research into high gear, and focussed on weaponizing the results.

Without a war to to do that, might not the ultimate application of nuclear power have turned out to be reactors and power plants instead of bombs? And without nuclear power being associated first and foremost with destruction and horror, might not people be more willing(or less leery)of dotting the landscape with those plants? A greater dependance on nuclear power might mean less dependance on fossil fuels, with a concomitant drop in influence of the Arab oil countries.
 

Susano

Banned
Without WWII, would there have been the impetus for that world to develop nuclear weapons that we saw? If I recall correctly, before and in the early years of the war, scientists were working on the theory(if not the application) in a 'hey, you never know what we might be able to use this for' kind of way, but it was the war, and more importantly the knowledge that the Nazis were pursuing nuclear weapons, that kicked the research into high gear, and focussed on weaponizing the results.

Oh... oh my. Thats hilariously americanocentric, even if most likely unintentionally. Dont you see a problem with "there was only research on nuclear weapons because the Nazis already researched nuclear weapons"? ;)

Anyways, I dont think its possible for it to be no nuclear weapons at all. Its simply a too good useful application, so sooner or later it will come. How much later though - well, actually I dont think all that much later. After all, Europe at this time hardly was sunshine and ice cream, there were enough tensions to justify weapons research. And if the German scientific community isnt shattered by the Nazis coming to power (and that already happened quite rapidly after 33, so there is quite some divergence time), then there will be a greater and readier "brain mass" ready for such research. OTOH, WW2 caused the USA to sink immense sums of money into the research, and the impetus is generally not as large, of course. So, I would say if its not in the 40s as IOTL it will happen the latest in the 50s. Probably with more long-drawn, gradual research, making all too high-secret research rather impossible, too...
 
A few other thoughts:

The welfare state comes earlier

The Bretton Woods system comes later

There's an earlier general election in Britain (say around 1940?)
 
Top