Political Atmosphere of World without Communism, Fascism & Zionism

[The Federalist]

I started a similar thread before but it deviated into a discussion on whether or not the Soviets could pull off an invasion of Europe in 1945 right after defeating the Nazis.

So anyway, the POD is the Nazis never come to power and Germany instead becomes ruled over by an alternate right-wing government (a coalition of conservative parties?, the Army?, Lettow-Vorbeck?). The growing threat of a Soviet invasion makes the Western Powers allow the Germans to rearm and they amass about the same military strength that Nazi Germany had in OTL. The Finns allow for Franco-British forces to put up bases near the border with Russia. The Soviets invade sometime in the 40's and by the 50's, British, French and German troops occupy the Western Part of the U.S.S.R.. Siberia fell to American forces about the same time the Soviet Government moves East in the closing stages of the war with Japan (the European and Pacific wars happen independently of each other). Russia is divided between the Europeans and Americans. Also, after the fall of the U.S.S.R., the victorious powers manage to expose greatly, the crimes of the Stalinist regime, effectively convincing the world that Communism is a bad thing. It becomes similar to Nazism in OTL, no longer a major political force in the world.

The postwar world looks like this. There is no Communism and no Fascism (outside Italy, but it eventually collapses and becomes democratic like Spain in OTL). Without the Holocaust, the Zionist movement never succeeds in convincing the world to support a Jewish state. It is unsuccessful in its attempts to establish the State of Israel. No Israel, no troubles in the Middle East.

So, what would be the political atmosphere in such a world? My guess is that there would be a Euro-American Cold War over the issue of decolonization with the Americans supporting colonial independence movements as the Europeans struggle to hold on to their empires. But what else could happen?

EDIT: A better title for this thread would be "Political Atmosphere of World without Communism, Nazism & Zionism", since there is still Fascism but not in a form powerful enough to be locked in a Cold War with Liberal Democracy or any other ideology. Fascist Italy would probably be part of mainstream Europe along with Britain, France, etc.

 

[Grey Wolf]

A very interesting idea which I will think more about at home and make larger comments on, but one thing strikes me

The independence movements would thus be supported by something like a very RIGHT-wing USA (maybe even with someone like Byrnes as president) which means that this is taking the place of Communism as an alternative to gradualism

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Sovietdolphin]

I don't think that communism, as an idea, can be discredited as easily as Nazism. Despite the crimes of socialist states, communism, as an ideology, still has great appeal to poor people, and there will always be widespread belief that "they did it wrong" and "we will do it right."

 

[Admiral Canaris]

Why will America support the independence movements? Without bad Nazi PR, racism will probably still be going strong there. And with Soviet Communism the only great enemy of the free world in recent times, I can easily see that becoming as demonised as Nazism is IOTL. The colonial guerrillas will either be viewed as barbarians or as Communists, and America isn't too likely to favour either. Or are we assuming a strong New Dealer/Liberal influence?

 

[The Federalist]

I don't think that communism, as an idea, can be discredited as easily as Nazism. Despite the crimes of socialist states, communism, as an ideology, still has great appeal to poor people, and there will always be widespread belief that "they did it wrong" and "we will do it right."

Well, there would still be Communist movements around the world but without a superpower to support them and with opposition coming from all the great powers, plus the memory of Stalin, it can't be a major political force in this world.

Why will America support the independence movements? Without bad Nazi PR, racism will probably still be going strong there. And with Soviet Communism the only great enemy of the free world in recent times, I can easily see that becoming as demonised as Nazism is IOTL. The colonial guerrillas will either be viewed as barbarians or as Communists, and America isn't too likely to favour either. Or are we assuming a strong New Dealer/Liberal influence?

Remember, in this world, the Europeans and Americans never came together like they did in OTL's WW2, the Europeans defeated Communism alone and the Americans defeated Imperial Japan alone (pretty much like in OTL). So ,there's a lot of space for them to develop some kind of animosity. As for the Liberal influence thing, maybe, I don't know what could happen to America in this world, there's a whole host of possibilities. I'll have to think about it but then I again, I don't know enough about this.

Also, remember, you can post an alternative "Political Atmosphere" to this Euro-American Cold War if you have something in mind.

 

[Jape]

Why will America support the independence movements?

Because even prior to the POD here, America had long viewed the European empires with disdain. Prior to becoming the prominent superpower, and the moral ambiguities that come with such power, the USA viewed itself as the promised land, a self-contained, free republic in which all were welcome, American Dream etc. The Europeans by comparision were war-like imperialists, forcing native populations to bow before them. Do remember Woodrow Wilson's 14 points regarding self-determination.

In OTL it was only the growing Cold War tensions of the late 40's that saw the US back the French in Indochina for instance. They had previously supplied the Viet Minh during the Japanese occupation, both for purely military goals but also in the hope of offering the returning French colonial authorities a powerful oppostion. However a combination of Gaullism and the growing Communist control of the Viet Minh led to a protracted guerilla war, rather than a nogiated end to French rule. Compare this to the less ideological conflict in the Dutch East Indies, where a more sensible colonial government VS a less extremist resistance movement (backed at least morally by the US) saw a relatively peaceful end to hostilities. I'm not saying Indonesia has led a utopian existance but compared to Vietnam...

However if there was no Soviet Union to back the extremists of the Viet Minh, and realpolitik meant the old European Empires now faced off against the USA, I can easily see Ho Chi Min (despite his lefty stance, Min was also a pragmatist, I doubt the death of the USSR would stop his nationalist goals) and his guerillas being supplied with surplus Garand M1 rifles, and 'advised' by CIA operatives. It is quite a Turtledove irony but in this TL it seems plausible

 

[Dean_the_Young]

-snip-

While those are all true (and valid points), there is another very serious reason why the US would work towards ending colonialism, much as it did OTL.

Trade.

Colonies are generally closed markets to outsiders, which provide the owner a economic advantage in the area. Post-WW2, the US made very serious concessions in tariffs to Britain for much smaller reductions in the British Imperial Tariff, and that with with as strong a post-war hand as it had. Opposing colonialism and supporting independence movements will/would be just another instance where American interests nicely align with a moral argument.

 

[Jape]

Ah yes I did completly forget the most important reason: money

 

[Beowulf2005]

Ah yes I did completly forget the most important reason: money

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[Emperor Qianlong]

I wonder what happens with China in this TL. It hasn't been mentioned a single time, but I would assume from the 'no communism' premise that Mao obviously never succeeded.

 

[The Federalist]

Because even prior to the POD here, America had long viewed the European empires with disdain...

Colonies are generally closed markets to outsiders, which provide the owner a economic advantage in the area. Post-WW2, the US made very serious concessions in tariffs to Britain for much smaller reductions in the British Imperial Tariff, and that with with as strong a post-war hand as it had. Opposing colonialism and supporting independence movements will/would be just another instance where American interests nicely align with a moral argument.

Exactly! There you go. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I wonder what happens with China in this TL. It hasn't been mentioned a single time, but I would assume from the 'no communism' premise that Mao obviously never succeeded.

He doesn't and the ROC stays in power on the mainland.

 

[AMF]

The postwar world looks like this. There is no Communism and no Fascism (outside Italy, but it eventually collapses and becomes democratic like Spain in OTL). Without the Holocaust, the Zionist movement never succeeds in convincing the world to support a Jewish state. It is unsuccessful in its attempts to establish the State of Israel. No Israel, no troubles in the Middle East.

I do not believe that there would be "no troubles in the Middle East" just because in this timeline there is no Israel. At first there would be the problem of European colonialism (as you rightly pointed out), but even when that is gone there would still be the problems of dictatorships, poverty, corruption, religious intolerance and ethnic conflicts. Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq, for example, is perfectly thinkable without Israel.

 

[Kidblast]

I do not believe that there would be "no troubles in the Middle East" just because in this timeline there is no Israel. At first there would be the problem of European colonialism (as you rightly pointed out), but even when that is gone there would still be the problems of dictatorships, poverty, corruption, religious intolerance and ethnic conflicts. Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq, for example, is perfectly thinkable without Israel.

So Israel is responsible for all problems in the Middle East?

 

[The Federalist]

I do not believe that there would be "no troubles in the Middle East" just because in this timeline there is no Israel. At first there would be the problem of European colonialism (as you rightly pointed out), but even when that is gone there would still be the problems of dictatorships, poverty, corruption, religious intolerance and ethnic conflicts. Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq, for example, is perfectly thinkable without Israel.

There would still be problems like that of course just like on any other region on Earth but without Israel, Radical Islam would have one less reason for hating the West (if they don't have to support Israel) and there is a less likely chance for a War on Terror to happen ITTL. So a much better phrase would be, "less troubles in the Midldle East".

 

[CanadianGoose]

Germany would not attack Russia alone, as it could try to pull this trick off only with madman at helm. Joint invasion? Well, as soon as population of Britain and France will be willing to put up with millions of dead French and British bodies buried in Russia, it is doable. In my book it reads "never". And don't get me started on raise of NAzism sponsored by corporations as bullwark against communism.

Assuming that ASBs placed extremely powerful menthal transmitters on orbit and it all happened as you described, one cant reasonably count on pretty bleak life, but a short one, as majority of things we are used to consider inalienable right (old age pensions, medicare programs, welfare, unemployment insurance) was introduced under the huge pressure from Soviets, as Western ruling elites were waging war for hearts and minds of populace. Witness lighting-fast deterioration of social safety net today. During big bad USSR virtually every employee in Canada had been eligible for unemployment insurance in the case of layoff. Today one of 3 is eligible.

 

[The Federalist]

Germany would not attack Russia alone, as it could try to pull this trick off only with madman at helm. Joint invasion? Well, as soon as population of Britain and France will be willing to put up with millions of dead French and British bodies buried in Russia, it is doable. In my book it reads "never". And don't get me started on raise of NAzism sponsored by corporations as bullwark against communism.

The scenario I posted above said the Soviets invaded not the other way around.

Assuming that ASBs placed extremely powerful menthal transmitters on orbit and it all happened as you described, one cant reasonably count on pretty bleak life, but a short one, as majority of things we are used to consider inalienable right (old age pensions, medicare programs, welfare, unemployment insurance) was introduced under the huge pressure from Soviets, as Western ruling elites were waging war for hearts and minds of populace. Witness lighting-fast deterioration of social safety net today. During big bad USSR virtually every employee in Canada had been eligible for unemployment insurance in the case of layoff. Today one of 3 is eligible.

What??? Really??? The Soviets introduced those things? Can anyone else clarify this?

 

[Dean_the_Young]

What??? Really??? The Soviets introduced those things? Can anyone else clarify this?

Social Democracy, aka European Democracy, was just like American democracy in that it took the ideas of communism that it wanted, and integrated them into the social network, notably in the form of social-security network. Or race-reforms in the US; the Marxists never really reconciled that a capitalist society could simply take the virtues it wanted from a communist society without taking the whole package.

I am puzzled as to how it could be considered a decision done under duress, however, since the retribution from Moscow for not doing it would have been insignificant, considering how separate the two sides were. The social security network most likely would have happened sooner or later (it already had roots before), but if one accepts the argument of "the Soviets did it first, and anyone else who did anything similar only did so because of Soviet influence," then yes, it's an argument.

Not a particularly logical one, mind you, but an argument. It has the same strength as arguing that all movement towards democracy was only done under US pressure.

 

[nils]

I am puzzled as to how it could be considered a decision done under duress, however, since the retribution from Moscow for not doing it would have been insignificant, considering how separate the two sides were. The social security network most likely would have happened sooner or later (it already had roots before), but if one accepts the argument of "the Soviets did it first, and anyone else who did anything similar only did so because of Soviet influence," then yes, it's an argument.

Not a particularly logical one, mind you, but an argument. It has the same strength as arguing that all movement towards democracy was only done under US pressure.

It is a valid argument in my opinion. Not because "the soviets did it, we must do it too". Instead there was a lot of fear that "the people" would see communism / socialism as advantageous and revolt. So the western powers followed a two-pronged approach, the classic carrot and stick. Give the people some concessions in the form of social reforms, and at the same time villify the USSR. Then there was Operation Gladio, a stay-behind network that supposedly was actually behind some terror attacks in Europe - and which were framed on the commies. (My understanding is that this actually happened, but I am not a historian.)

 

[CanadianGoose]

I am puzzled as to how it could be considered a decision done under duress, however, since the retribution from Moscow for not doing it would have been insignificant, considering how separate the two sides were.

I'm not talking about direct pressure ftom the Moscow, I'm talking about pressure from the local workers (I know this moniker isn't fashionable anymore, but it could mean anyone who earns most of his/her income in form of salary). Communists provided an alternative, and it was (especially from the distance, when "small details" like Gulag become invisible) tempting for salaried peoples. Carrot and stick, yes.

The social security network most likely would have happened sooner or later (it already had roots before)

It could or it could not, we'll never know. Hard facts OTL is that Safety net had been greatly strengthened when Soviet Union was at height of it's influence (immediately post-WWII) and started to deteriorate lightning-fast immediately after USSR break-up.

Then there was Operation Gladio, a stay-behind network that supposedly was actually behind some terror attacks in Europe - and which were framed on the commies. (My understanding is that this actually happened, but I am not a historian.)

I would not overestimeate influence of such episodes. They are more useful as a measuring stick to gauge desperation of traditional Western elites than as explanation of events.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

I'm not talking about direct pressure ftom the Moscow, I'm talking about pressure from the local workers (I know this moniker isn't fashionable anymore, but it could mean anyone who earns most of his/her income in form of salary). Communists provided an alternative, and it was (especially from the distance, when "small details" like Gulag become invisible) tempting for salaried peoples. Carrot and stick, yes.

Actually, you were.

Assuming that ASBs placed extremely powerful menthal transmitters on orbit and it all happened as you described, one cant reasonably count on pretty bleak life, but a short one, as majority of things we are used to consider inalienable right (old age pensions, medicare programs, welfare, unemployment insurance) was introduced under the huge pressure from Soviets,...

And considering how life was hardly any less "bleak, but () short" in the Soviet Union with its safety net, I have to doubt your alusion that longevity and social happiness only happen with a welfare state. Longevity is something that's always relative anyways, but the Roaring Twenties weren't thought of as the good times because everyone was taking home Social Security and had state-sponsored medicine.

It could or it could not, we'll never know.

Actually, we do. Labor and social reform groups had been gaining ground for decades beforehand, and the chances of them suddenly losing all attraction because there's no hated enemy who's doing it is about as likely as water running uphill. Capitalism stole the idea because it liked it, and liking it had little to do with someone else being one of the first to do so.

Hard facts OTL is that Safety net had been greatly strengthened when Soviet Union was at height of it's influence (immediately post-WWII) and started to deteriorate lightning-fast immediately after USSR break-up.

"Hard facts" tend to vary from place to place. Please prove how European welfare has deteriorated "lighting-fast" since the Cold War.

I would not overestimeate influence of such episodes. They are more useful as a measuring stick to gauge desperation of traditional Western elites than as explanation of events.

While I would hardly put false-flag terrorism as beyond the capabilities or will of any western intelligence agencies, are we going to see any sort of supporting evidence for this? Such as which terrorist attacks are alleged to have been false-flag, or who set this group up when, and how long did they operate?