If Not America, Then Who?
- Thread starter Anaxagoras
- Start date
I chose Germany.
I assume that Britain wins the independence war in America, and tries to keep those colonies from becoming too strong. That also means, other powers like France, Russia and Spain keep larger interests in the area - and therefore more of the ressources there. The Spanish states may become independent similar to OTL, but reach far more to the north. The French states will be gobbled up by Britain, similar to OTL. Russia extends Alaska slightly, as there is no such rush to the west from the eastern US.
WWI happens similar to OTL - while there is no US to help the Allies economically and later with some participation, GB is a good deal stronger due to rust belt ressources. The war might even be over in 1917 already. Still, as IOTL, the war costs Britain too much to keep the Empire together - The US emerges around 1920, much smaller and weaker than IOTL, and forced to build up an industry which doesn't exist to such a degree at that time, due to Britain monopolising manufacturing to a large degree. Similar to Ireland, it'll stay completely out of the war.
Germany thinks in terms of revenge similar to OTL, and is even more able than IOTL to break any treaties and conventions, as no serious US threat looms.
In WWII, it was mainly US help to Russia and Britain which kept those alive. This help is drastically reduced, and much more susceptible to naval disruptions, as the industries in Britain are crumbling (lost North American ressources and markets) but still taking up much of the ressources of the former colonies, while the industries in the US are still not strong enough.
There is no big change in economic power in Russia - even Stalin is still in power (for simplicity's sake).
Market economy is even less popular than IOTL, due to the lack of a well known US example, so that Britain has reduced growth in the 1920s and 30s, while Germany's aproach delivers similar results to OTL. Also, as some of the increased military spending increases already start in the late phases of the Weimar Republic, due to no US ensuring peace and the Versailles Treaty, Germany starts into fascism from a slightly "better" position - especially in terms of military technology. Military planners during the Weymar Republic were probably slightly better than Hitler's rather amateur-like approach to directing ressources - there would be more and better subs, more and better torpedo boats, more and better torpedo planes, better torpedoes, and so on - Germany would be prepared for cutting the lifelines of the British Empire. And it would also be stronger in other areas.
The result is that the Britons don't have a choice but to agree to peace with Germany shortly after the fall of France.
Germany would still fight the war in the east, even from a better position. Despite some advantages (like more and slightly better planes available), it would still loose the one or other battles eventually - thus stopping the fight for "Lebensraum" somewhere between 1943 and 1945, pretty much victoriously. Continental Europe will be pretty much German territory, though Spain, Italy, and other places will officially stay independent.
The US will as well be the first country to develop the nuclear bomb, thanks to Einstein, among others. But as the war in Europe is over by then, Germany will not be targeted. Also, the US won't have as large or advanced bombers available. Instead, the fascist victory will influence US opinion a lot - communist scare will include hostility towards Jews. Separation, eugenics, and similar stuff will reach new "heights" (world wide).
Germany will easily be able to keep Israel from forming, by supporting their enemies (similar to Spain), thus decimating the Jewish population even more than IOTL.
The growth of the German industry will be less than what happened after WWII, also thanks to nationalised new industries - but as Germany starts from a better position and with much more ressouces available, it'll still be the industrial, technological, and military leader at the end of the 20th century.
The Commonwealth will be much stronger than IOTL, as the Commonwealth countries will be under far more pressure to compete than IOTL under a US lead cold war "umbrella". The US will also be a member. The Commonwealth will be something like the EU, but more militaristic. It's members seen as one will be the second most powerful block.
China will not be allowed to become communist - especially as Russia is in no position to support communism there to a large degree. Instead, maybe Manchukuo and Tibet stay/become independent after WWII. Inner Mongolia will be the area were the communist Chinese will retreat to and will unite with Mongolia eventually. Capitalist rump China will grow much faster much sooner (not quite as much as Taiwan did IOTL, but still impressive).
Capitalism and democracy would be completely discredited in Germany - there would be no movements at all in this direction, and there would be quite a few countries following that example. As quite a bit of the German success was built upon the achievements of the Weimar Republic, Germany would loose it's leadership at about today. According reform attempts would lead to another wave of self destruction due to the fascists fighting the reformers successfully while the number of people realising that reforms are needed reaches higher and higher levels. More and more wars in foreign countries are lost by Germany. The US and China emerge as the new leaders.
I assume that Britain wins the independence war in America, and tries to keep those colonies from becoming too strong. That also means, other powers like France, Russia and Spain keep larger interests in the area - and therefore more of the ressources there. The Spanish states may become independent similar to OTL, but reach far more to the north. The French states will be gobbled up by Britain, similar to OTL. Russia extends Alaska slightly, as there is no such rush to the west from the eastern US.
WWI happens similar to OTL - while there is no US to help the Allies economically and later with some participation, GB is a good deal stronger due to rust belt ressources. The war might even be over in 1917 already. Still, as IOTL, the war costs Britain too much to keep the Empire together - The US emerges around 1920, much smaller and weaker than IOTL, and forced to build up an industry which doesn't exist to such a degree at that time, due to Britain monopolising manufacturing to a large degree. Similar to Ireland, it'll stay completely out of the war.
Germany thinks in terms of revenge similar to OTL, and is even more able than IOTL to break any treaties and conventions, as no serious US threat looms.
In WWII, it was mainly US help to Russia and Britain which kept those alive. This help is drastically reduced, and much more susceptible to naval disruptions, as the industries in Britain are crumbling (lost North American ressources and markets) but still taking up much of the ressources of the former colonies, while the industries in the US are still not strong enough.
There is no big change in economic power in Russia - even Stalin is still in power (for simplicity's sake).
Market economy is even less popular than IOTL, due to the lack of a well known US example, so that Britain has reduced growth in the 1920s and 30s, while Germany's aproach delivers similar results to OTL. Also, as some of the increased military spending increases already start in the late phases of the Weimar Republic, due to no US ensuring peace and the Versailles Treaty, Germany starts into fascism from a slightly "better" position - especially in terms of military technology. Military planners during the Weymar Republic were probably slightly better than Hitler's rather amateur-like approach to directing ressources - there would be more and better subs, more and better torpedo boats, more and better torpedo planes, better torpedoes, and so on - Germany would be prepared for cutting the lifelines of the British Empire. And it would also be stronger in other areas.
The result is that the Britons don't have a choice but to agree to peace with Germany shortly after the fall of France.
Germany would still fight the war in the east, even from a better position. Despite some advantages (like more and slightly better planes available), it would still loose the one or other battles eventually - thus stopping the fight for "Lebensraum" somewhere between 1943 and 1945, pretty much victoriously. Continental Europe will be pretty much German territory, though Spain, Italy, and other places will officially stay independent.
The US will as well be the first country to develop the nuclear bomb, thanks to Einstein, among others. But as the war in Europe is over by then, Germany will not be targeted. Also, the US won't have as large or advanced bombers available. Instead, the fascist victory will influence US opinion a lot - communist scare will include hostility towards Jews. Separation, eugenics, and similar stuff will reach new "heights" (world wide).
Germany will easily be able to keep Israel from forming, by supporting their enemies (similar to Spain), thus decimating the Jewish population even more than IOTL.
The growth of the German industry will be less than what happened after WWII, also thanks to nationalised new industries - but as Germany starts from a better position and with much more ressouces available, it'll still be the industrial, technological, and military leader at the end of the 20th century.
The Commonwealth will be much stronger than IOTL, as the Commonwealth countries will be under far more pressure to compete than IOTL under a US lead cold war "umbrella". The US will also be a member. The Commonwealth will be something like the EU, but more militaristic. It's members seen as one will be the second most powerful block.
China will not be allowed to become communist - especially as Russia is in no position to support communism there to a large degree. Instead, maybe Manchukuo and Tibet stay/become independent after WWII. Inner Mongolia will be the area were the communist Chinese will retreat to and will unite with Mongolia eventually. Capitalist rump China will grow much faster much sooner (not quite as much as Taiwan did IOTL, but still impressive).
Capitalism and democracy would be completely discredited in Germany - there would be no movements at all in this direction, and there would be quite a few countries following that example. As quite a bit of the German success was built upon the achievements of the Weimar Republic, Germany would loose it's leadership at about today. According reform attempts would lead to another wave of self destruction due to the fascists fighting the reformers successfully while the number of people realising that reforms are needed reaches higher and higher levels. More and more wars in foreign countries are lost by Germany. The US and China emerge as the new leaders.
Last edited:
This really depends on the POD. Does America never recover from the Great Depression or the economic troubles of the 1970s? Does America get destroyed by Soviet nuclear ICBMs or German/Japanese atom bombs? Can we get a little more specific?
But I voted for Japan. I think there are a lot of possible PODs of American irrelevance/destruction in which Japan can be successful.
I'd like to know what people think might happen in a scenario with a POD in which the Bolshevik revolution in Russia is crushed AND America succumbs to the Great Depression...
Well, actually, I'll go post that in another thread...
But I voted for Japan. I think there are a lot of possible PODs of American irrelevance/destruction in which Japan can be successful.
I'd like to know what people think might happen in a scenario with a POD in which the Bolshevik revolution in Russia is crushed AND America succumbs to the Great Depression...
Well, actually, I'll go post that in another thread...
Before Pasha gets here
The Ottomans were not crumbling, If they can hold on to their mideast, till King Oil gets here, and combine it with their industrial base ............
Not impossible, but this is from a circa 1900 perspective. Also, oil power alone does not make a superpower, although as a unified state the Ottomans could stabilize themselves and modernize to become a regional powerhouse.
Whereas the British, Germans, Americans, etc. were almost consistently gaining in size and power, the Ottomans went into decline starting in the 1700s. By 1900, they'd lost most of their Balkan and African territories (by 1914, they'd lost nearly all of both). Their economy was far behind the western European great powers (granted, it wasn't far behind southern / eastern Europe), and would likely remain so until the oil boom. In World War I, the Ottomans basically screwed themselves over by joining the Central Powers - the British were more than able to forment rebellion among the Arabs and Armenians, and they basically lost control over their southern lands. Had the Allies decided to enforce the Treaty of Sevres with force, then Ataturk and modern Turkey would have been nipped in the bud and Turkey would have resembled 19th century China in terms of being under the 'influence' of other powers.
The Ottomans could have stayed together, especially if they stayed out of World War I, but the same could be said for Austria-Hungary at the time. Both were behind the big guys and both had ethnic tensions that could be exploited. Take World War I away, or change the outcome, and they MIGHT do well enough to survive, perhaps even as a power. As THE superpower, though, I think its implausible (granted, China being a Great Power might not have seemed the most plausible thing at the time, either).
Can Anyone Say, Time-Line 191 ...
Without American Troops Swelling the Allied Ranks and Storm Troopers Wasted in Grueling Suicidal Charges, Especially if British Troops are Required to Shore Up Canadian Defenses ...
Germany has a Chance to Be The World's Number One Colonial Power, IMPERIAL Germany that is!
Without American Troops Swelling the Allied Ranks and Storm Troopers Wasted in Grueling Suicidal Charges, Especially if British Troops are Required to Shore Up Canadian Defenses ...
Germany has a Chance to Be The World's Number One Colonial Power, IMPERIAL Germany that is!
Nobody else aside from maybe the Russians (and that I think is highly, highly unlikely) could match the US for power. China and India were too far back, and too poor and underdeveloped. Britain had the not-insignificant problem of needing access to resources, same is true of Japan, Italy and to a lesser extent France and Germany.
If you could load up the populations of South Africa, Australia or Canada you could conceivably make each of them a dominant power. (especially if Australia can keep the Dutch East Undies and use those islands as bases and a water supply, and South Africa has access to the water of the Congo and the vast resources of its neighbors.)
If you could load up the populations of South Africa, Australia or Canada you could conceivably make each of them a dominant power. (especially if Australia can keep the Dutch East Undies and use those islands as bases and a water supply, and South Africa has access to the water of the Congo and the vast resources of its neighbors.)
general_tiu
Banned
How about the Chinese, with modernization stuff and all, they could eventually do the lone superpower stuff if they wanted to.
What's with all this Anglo-wankery? The US already had a substantially bigger industrial base than all the British empire put together in 1914, possibly bigger than the German and British Empires put together. And the huge population of the British Empire's territories is _irrelevant_ - the Empire's policies were hardly conducive to modernization, Indian product per capita hardly changed through the 19th century and actually declined for a good while. And if by some miracle the British did start make a serious effort towards modernizing their empire, why on earth, after generations of being treated as children or servants, would the Indians, Africans, etc. wish to stick around? The British empire in 1914 was doomed to decline: the world wars simply accelerated the inevitable.
Now, if you can come up with a pre-1850 Eliminate Racist Assholery POD, you might have something.
Bruce
Now, if you can come up with a pre-1850 Eliminate Racist Assholery POD, you might have something.
Bruce
With a POD of 1914, I would have to say Germany. Without America's support in both World Wars, and the Cold War, Germany would clearly dominate Europe, and in turn....the world.
I would have to agree. Much as I would like a non-Soviet Russian superpower, I have a sneaking suspicion that, if the country radically reforms itself, the new guy in charge will be more a Boris Yeltsin than a George Washington. Sometimes the best you can do isn't that good.
Now, with Germany, we all know that it started the century as a capitalist, somewhat democratic, technologically and militarily sophisticated nation. However, what really think sets Germany apart is that the sheer unrestrained enthusiasm for expansion that existed in Wilhelmite Germany. Certainly it's something that scholars have been picking up on in their discussions of WWI. A lot of nations had empires, but it's only with Germany I get the sense that they were literally willing to do whatever was necessary to get one.
I think B_Munro has got it right. Even if Britain has better economic policies and more immigration, somewhat smaller losses in the World Wars and all the white settlement colonies plus South Africa form a unified nation, this will be significantly smaller than the United States. As for countries like India or Nigeria there are two basic possibilities: either they stay poor - in that case they cannot contribute to the superpower status of the Empire. Or they develop - and this is not possible without a more educated population, which also means a more politically aware population. More development also means better means of communications, more leisure time and less truely backbreaking work - in other words more factors to make people think about their political situation, which all result in stronger anti-colonial (or anti-Empire or anti-Greater Britain or whatever it is called) sentiment. A fully democratic Empire (one adult person - one vote) is also practically impossible - it would result in a kind of Greater India, with the Hindus as the one group that outnumbers all other groups combined - I assume most or all groups except perhaps the Hindus themselves would not like it.
Not having the World Wars at all would make Britain richer, but this applies to all the other combattants too, so there is no relative advantage to be gained. In fact the damage that was done to Britain was smaller than that done to most other nations, with the big exception of the US. Having the World Wars, but Britain being neutral is probably an even worse solution, with Germany and her allies winning - apart from the contribution of Britain herself to the Entente or the Allies it is unlikely that without Britain in these two wars the US would join.
For me, this is between the British and Russian Empires
At the end of the 19th century, Britain appeared as strong as it had ever done. In 1914 it held great loyalty in the crown colonies, as well as massively powerful economy. This is clearly a recipe for success and future integration.
On the other hand, the Russian Empire was vast, growing and blessed with plentiful resources. Stabilisation through gradual liberalisation was entirely possible. If the Tsar plays his cards right, the Russian Empire can be the economic and military power which the pre-WW1 propaganda said it was.
Ultimately I voted the British Empire, due to Britain being able to keep itself out of general European wars in a way that Russia can not.
At the end of the 19th century, Britain appeared as strong as it had ever done. In 1914 it held great loyalty in the crown colonies, as well as massively powerful economy. This is clearly a recipe for success and future integration.
On the other hand, the Russian Empire was vast, growing and blessed with plentiful resources. Stabilisation through gradual liberalisation was entirely possible. If the Tsar plays his cards right, the Russian Empire can be the economic and military power which the pre-WW1 propaganda said it was.
Ultimately I voted the British Empire, due to Britain being able to keep itself out of general European wars in a way that Russia can not.
Disregarding the US, Russia only came to a powerful point at the end of WWII, after defeating Germany. Before then, in 1914, where the POD is, Russia would not emerge as a power from the first war.
The British would face revolutions in her colonies (ex. India). Germany was not a major colonial power in 1914. It would not worry about this problem.
Faeelin
Banned
Except it was industrializing rapidly, had a huge pool of labor to draw on, and access to western capital.