Okay, here's an outline.
I was thinking of maybe having a neutral United States in World War I, thus allowing the Central Powers to emerge victorious. Wilson doesn't have his stroke and is reelected due to keeping the US out of war. Later on (whether during the Wilson administration or after), tensions increase between the US, UK, and Japan over the US's neutrality in WWI and Japan's holding of German colonies in the Pacific despite the latter still laying claim to the colonies. This culminates in an encounter between the Americans and Japanese near the Philippines, drawing them into the war (the UK enters with Japan, and both Germany and Italy join against the UK to seize colonial holdings). This is either a continuation of WWI or just an outright WWII. The US wins and annexes Canada and Allied colonies in the Caribbean. A cold war later develops between the US and Germany as the former becomes more authoritarian and the latter becomes more liberal.
So now we have a Second World War that is likely the cause of the 1928 economic collapse, an earlier-developing Cold War allowing for the earlier development of technologies and an already much bigger US. I'm not sure how plausible adding a communist power is to make a three-way Cold War, but then again I'm not sure how plausible my entire scenario is anyways.
How does it sound to you?
Russia pushes on in Finland after WW2 and annexes the country.
Well, the Finnish military was starting to fall apart. I think that they could have pulled it off.Occupying of Finland would be pretty shitty operation for Soviets. There would be much resistance.
So, I'm in the process of developing a timeline for this scenario, because I like it. A lot. But there's one problem I'm having... assuming World War II goes the way you say it does, how and when might a World War III start between the United States and the Soviet Union? Who would be on who's side in this scenario?Makes most sense in the context of horseshoe theory (instead of a left-right political spectrum, you have it bent down so that the two extremes are almost touching).
However, there are a few different ways the authoritarians can become right wing.
First, changing standards. 100 years ago, eugenics was considered progressive. The "enlightened" view was that society would control reproduction so "superior" people would be born and "inferior" people would take their defective genes to the grave. That would be considered extreme right today.
Drug and alcohol prohibition were supported by some progressives, in coalition with religious conservatives. Have to protect people from themselves, as well as the evil greedy businesses that sell those products. Wilson didn't want to enact Prohibition but supported its enforcement after the 18th Amendment. We would just need a more aggressive police state at an earlier point instead of a change in policy.
Wilson was racist even for his time, and the 1920s saw a resurgence of the KKK. Having a friend in the White House might result in more Tulsas and Rosewoods, as well as federal laws restricting civil rights.
Authoritarians often (not always) pursue an interventionist foreign policy, and Wilson fit the bill in his second term.
Assuming the Depression still happens, you need a New Deal, or even better, Share the Wealth. After President Long dies, his underlings engage in rampant corruption. The Louisiana Hayride on a national scale. With the government even more economically powerful than OTL, crooked deals become the best way to get rich quick. Authoritarian regimes tend to be kleptocracies.
Most plausible sequence might be to have the GOP win in 1924 with Wilson retiring after three terms, in which federal police power is dramatically expanded and federal laws are passed in support of eugenics and white supremacy. The 1929 stock market crash happens in the summer of 1928 instead of the fall of 1929, so the Democrats paint the Depression as what happens when you give Republicans the keys. A Wilson style prog from the border south or Midwest beats Al Smith for the nomination and goes back to the fascist policies. Huey Long primaries the incumbent in 1932 and implements Share the Wealth. He cuts a deal with Japan to sell them oil, thus butterflying away Pearl Harbor and out involvement in WW2. Which in turn means black veterans don't have the argument that they spilled their blood for a country that treats them as second class citizens. Long serves three terms and retires in 1945.
Russia takes a bigger chunk of western Europe after WW2, making the communist threat more serious and denying us the ability to get rich off the Marshall Plan, so we need a tighter security state. No GI bill to help create a prosperous middle class, so you end up with Long's successors selling out to the likes of Standard Oil. (Crony capitalism is a key feature of fascism.)
I'm sure there are more experienced members who could improve on that, but it's a starting point.
ETA: A Huey Long presidency also creates an obscure but very important butterfly effect. IOTL, the fallen Kingfish was a hero to a young Minnesota liberal named Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey moved to Baton Rouge in 1939. He was appalled by Jim Crow and eventually became the leading civil rights advocate in Congress. With a Long presidency, he moves to DC instead and doesn't give the great speech at the 1948 convention (which in turn triggered the Dixiecrat walkout).
So we have the following differences from OTL:
Stronger tradition of centralized power
Much weaker civil rights movement
No Democrat schism
No anti-Hitler propaganda to remind us of our own faults
The Holocaust is either unknown to us or Germany and the USSR are blaming each other, so Nazi racial theory hasn't discredited eugenics
Virtual one party system
Without us trying to beat Hitler to the A-bomb, the USSR might get there first.
Stronger and more threatening Soviet Union (I had them take all of Hitler's occupied territory to maximize the threat, as the OP was looking for a more authoritarian US during the Cold War. With no US reinforcements, the WAllies might also have had to lay low and allow Hitler to devote more resources to the eastern front and force a stalemate, but that would make the Cold War less intense.)
I understand it wouldn't have to happen, and it probably wouldn't due to all of the deterrents. However, I had what I feel is a great idea for the timeline but I feel it'll only work in the case of a Third World War.WW3 wouldn't have to happen. Soviet control of an even greater portion of Europe, along with their openly stated goal of world conquest, would be sufficient to create to create a cold war in TTL. Maybe the red flag that makes us really worry could be a Soviet invasion of northern China (since they were already weakened by Japan's unchallenged aggression in the Pacific ), or an incursion into Switzerland. We would then have to launch a STEM research race like we did IOTL with the Manhattan Project.
Or we could learn about Soviet WW2 atrocities and begin viewing them as public enemy #1 at that point.
I understand it wouldn't have to happen, and it probably wouldn't due to all of the deterrents. However, I had what I feel is a great idea for the timeline but I feel it'll only work in the case of a Third World War.
Anyways, I appreciate all your help, it was fantastic! I'll be sure to give credit!
I have one more question for you, dear Master.Thanks!!
I'm looking forward to seeing it. You're putting most of the work in, so feel free do so whatever works best. I won't be offended at all if it diverges from what I posted. Just the opposite - it'll be cool to see a finished timeline where I helped.
I have one more question for you, dear Master.
I've been toying with the idea of the US joining WWII as in OTL (Pearl Harbor happens), but Nazi Germany doesn't declare war on the US, so the US is only involves in the Pacific War. I felt it was a way in which to have the war still winnable while getting the Soviets further west. I also didn't think it made sense that a more interventionist US wouldn't enter into a worldwide conflict. Anyways, eventually the US would overpower Japan maybe a year faster (if the atom bomb developed early enough, that is; if the Manhattan Project was still too young, then Operation Downfall would probably make the Pacific War last longer). Either way, once the US forces Japan into unconditional surrender, they would enter the war in Europe, but they wouldn't be there long as the Soviets have largely cleaned up, earning them prestige in the eyes of the world.
My question to you is... how realistic is this? Could the US have beaten Japan faster? How far west could the Soviets realistically get?
Any way to have the Soviets land on the Moon first? Any way to have a Mars landing possible? Possibly with an earlier invention of the transistor?I assume we beat Japan faster if we throw our full fury at them instead of fighting a two-front war. But that also ends the Pacific war before we develop the atomic bomb.
WW2 in Europe is likely more protracted. I'm not sure Britian could have established a beachhead at Normandy by itself. That allows Hitler to fight a one-front war against Stalin, with his toadies in the Vichy government holding down any resistance. Eventually Stalin wins the war of attrition, but with the WAllies in a much weaker position, he can keep going west after the fall of Berlin. His puppets win the rigged elections in France, Belgium, and the Netherlands just like they did in eastern Europe. He can also make false promises to the resistance in exchange for their support on the battlefield.
I don't think he has the ability or inclination to take Spain and England.
So I would say your idea is very realistic. You would just have to decide whether the Pacific war becomes a meat grinder and we still complete the Manhattan Project, or we win the war before we have the Bomb. I would consider that a tossup, so I'd just run with whichever scenario fits your plans better.
Any way to have the Soviets land on the Moon first? Any way to have a Mars landing possible? Possibly with an earlier invention of the transistor?
The Solar System shall unite under the Red Banner!