No Cold War

I've been wondering about something; what would be the effects on the modern world in a TL where the Cold War never takes place? Let's say that the Nazi's managed near the end of WWII to give the USSR a knockout blow only for the Allies to still crush them, how exactly would this change the next sixty years?
 
I've been wondering about something; what would be the effects on the modern world in a TL where the Cold War never takes place? Let's say that the Nazi's managed near the end of WWII to give the USSR a knockout blow only for the Allies to still crush them, how exactly would this change the next sixty years?

If the Germans gave the USSR a "knockout blow" in 1942 or 43, and that's pretty much the only chances they had to do just that, that would complicate the lives of the allies immensely. You'd have over a million troops being pulled from the Eastern Front available to be deployed against the Allies.

Even with nuclear strikes, I think the only way you'd get Germany to surrender is if you manage to off Hitler.
 
I figured that there was some point in 1944 where the Germans could get lucking and manage to hurt the USSR enough that it'd would be able to join the drive toward Berlin (much less the polish border). Especially when considering how by the end of the War the Russians seemed to have been running mainly on sheer will power then anything else.
 
If they "knock out" the USSR, the Allies only have nukes left to go upon and it won't be a pretty timeline at all.

Try another PoD.
 

Xen

Banned
The best way to have a No Cold War world is to have Stalin croke in 1944 before all the big meetings with Churchill/Atlee and FDR/Truman. His successor is able to secure a deal with the western allies, that neutralizes Eastern Europe and breaks Germany into several smaller states. Eastern Europe becomes capitalist and democratic, but is effectively Finlandized.
 
If they "knock out" the USSR, the Allies only have nukes left to go upon and it won't be a pretty timeline at all.

Try another PoD.

Why would nuking Germany be any worse than nuking Japan?

Considering the context, with a vastly weaken Soviet Union and thus no Cold War, thus no Korean War, no Vietnam War, No Cuban Missile Crisis, No Afganistan War, and lessened tensions thoughout the world the overall result might be a net positive.

From the God-like perspective of a alt-historian of course...:eek:
 
I find it very difficult to imagine a post-WW2 scenario in which the USA has no strong rivals. Even if, by some miracle, the Nazis could destroy the Soviet's industrial capacity, almost any conceivable situation at the end of the war would result in a huge 'power vacuum' which the USA could never fill alone.
 
I find it very difficult to imagine a post-WW2 scenario in which the USA has no strong rivals. Even if, by some miracle, the Nazis could destroy the Soviet's industrial capacity, almost any conceivable situation at the end of the war would result in a huge 'power vacuum' which the USA could never fill alone.

So what happens then?

After all the OP was requesting "No Cold War" not America-wank.

Soviet Union greatly weaken, would threat of ideological communism be enough for a Marshall Plan lite?

Kind of hard to imagine the Americans going home again.

Have to occupy Germany and Japan, thus some rebuilding and entanglement takes place.

Hmm, with no Iron Curtain Eastern Europe weak and unstable.

Really Europe is a mess, England and France painfully decolonizing Germany occupied, Eastern Europe devastated, Russia still there in what state?


Fear of European instablity leading to another World War likely to keep some of OTL events on track.

Rebuilding of Europe, Western and Eastern, (Russia?).

United Nations makes sense, and indeed if the Sovs are not playing world domination games, far more sense.

Does the US see the Fading Empires as sources of stablity or instablity?

Without a huge Soviet Army parked in the middle of Europe and with no (or greatly delayed ) Soviet Bomb, far less money needed for SAC.

Money potentially to be used in other ways.

MOre convential troops for more limited stuff? More aid to buy friends? To build up friends?

Two possiblities.

1 Support breakup of empires, support third world industrialization. Without Soviet threat, third world growth much less threatening.

2 Support/push England and France in holding on to strategic holdings.

Or some combination of the two, only with a far differant split thanks to butterflies.
 
Why would nuking Germany be any worse than nuking Japan?

Because it won't be just two.

Remember, 80% of all German losses are in the East. So yeah, a couple of cities get nuked, but Germany still has Fortress Europe and an army too big for the Allies to tackle. They don't surrender.

The Americans will need to repeat the process until they do. It might take more than a couple more.

Just think about the implications of all of that, both short term and long term.
 
Because it won't be just two.

Remember, 80% of all German losses are in the East. So yeah, a couple of cities get nuked, but Germany still has Fortress Europe and an army too big for the Allies to tackle. They don't surrender.

The Americans will need to repeat the process until they do. It might take more than a couple more.

Just think about the implications of all of that, both short term and long term.


Hmmm, ok.

Still...

Considering the scale of convential bombing and the size of the WWII atom bombs, it is not like we are talking about the end of Germany.

Although if you combine higher civilian toll in Germany with the higher civilian losses in Russian from, say the German capture of Moscow...


Well, the ending of WWII would be uglier. Still, the whole war was such a holocaust, what's a couple hundred thousand more? Would it really be that much of a greater trauma for the world?:confused:




Some of the reprecussions that come to mind:

Nazism not defeated on the battlefield, but with a superweapon. Could lead to a less discredited Naizism. Very bad.

Combined with a not divided Germany, despite nukings, could lead to issues with Germany again!
 
I must reiterate producing nukes at this point in time as difficult the US would have been able to field maybe a half dozen in the short term including Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as one for Tokyo, from the estimates I've heard so nuking Germany would be a problem
 
Why does America have to nuke Japan first? After all by the time that the A-bombs are dropped they're pretty much already out of the war, confined to the home isles with a ruined economy and extremely limited food production. It's highly unlikely that there's anything they can do while the Allies concentrate on the Nazis.

On that note I would think that people are overestimating the Nazis somewhat; this isn't Germany knocking the USSR out of the war in 42/43's and having time to supposedly pacify the region and ship their troops west but a victory around the time of late 1944 to early 45. Which means that Germany is all but running on fumes with most of it's current economy only hanging on by a shoestring.

Yes they can ship a number of soldiers to the western front but at the same time the Nazi's have to leave a portion behind simply to hold the area. I figured that it might take a few months long for the Allies to get into Germany then OTL but with possibly the use of a-bombs.
 
Why does America have to nuke Japan first? After all by the time that the A-bombs are dropped they're pretty much already out of the war, confined to the home isles with a ruined economy and extremely limited food production. It's highly unlikely that there's anything they can do while the Allies concentrate on the Nazis.

On that note I would think that people are overestimating the Nazis somewhat; this isn't Germany knocking the USSR out of the war in 42/43's and having time to supposedly pacify the region and ship their troops west but a victory around the time of late 1944 to early 45. Which means that Germany is all but running on fumes with most of it's current economy only hanging on by a shoestring.

Yes they can ship a number of soldiers to the western front but at the same time the Nazi's have to leave a portion behind simply to hold the area. I figured that it might take a few months long for the Allies to get into Germany then OTL but with possibly the use of a-bombs.




Good point, with Germany going fore bore like this, I can't see them nuking Japan, first.


Combine that with Hell's point about limited bombs...


TL seems to be firming up a little.
 
Well, the ending of WWII would be uglier. Still, the whole war was such a holocaust, what's a couple hundred thousand more? Would it really be that much of a greater trauma for the world?

Funny you should mention that.

For every month more than the Germans stay in the war, the amount of PoW and concentration camp survivors rapidly diminishes. We may be talking about a good deal more than a couple hundred thousand, all taken together.

Basically, unless dismembering the USSR is an end goal in itself, you're looking at a far more traumatic conclusion to the war, followed by (very likely) constant unrest in Europe.

But it increasingly begins to look like that is the goal, so I'll leave the thread be.
 
Funny you should mention that.

For every month more than the Germans stay in the war, the amount of PoW and concentration camp survivors rapidly diminishes. We may be talking about a good deal more than a couple hundred thousand, all taken together.

Basically, unless dismembering the USSR is an end goal in itself, you're looking at a far more traumatic conclusion to the war, followed by (very likely) constant unrest in Europe.

But it increasingly begins to look like that is the goal, so I'll leave the thread be.


Goal was no Cold War, because the Nazis "knock them out" and what are the reprecussions. I am seeing that as requiring the prevention of Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, at least, given the OP.

If you have an alternative I would be happy to hear it, even if you're one of those who believe the Cold War is America's fault (although then I would disagree with you and probably derail the thread ;)).


I'm not disagreeing with you now; did wonder on how much more traumatic and how long term the unrest would be.

But that is not a Cold War.

Sort of brings us back to the idea that the Cold War was a period of relative peace (ie not Hot War), relative for Europe anyway.


Good point about camp survivors BTW.

And how much longer do we think this senerio takes?
 
Let's say that during the Soviet Operation Bagration the USSR overstretches itself and by late July has been forced onto the defensive and is losing its' recently regained ground at a heavy cost to the Germans. By the start of September the Soviets have lost nearly lost nearly all of the land that they had regained.

On the other hand the success in Russia leaves Nazi command overly confident in their chances which leads to forces being pulled from Hollland and sent east...

Which combined with a bit of luck leads to Operation Market Garden actully succeeding and by Janurary 1 1945 Allied forces have managed to reach Berlin.
 
Top