The Anglo/American - Nazi War

[radaron]

Poland can rely on the extensive expatriate community to help recover.

But after living in a different country for 20 years- in which time many expatriates would likely have their own families to care for, would you really want to move back to your war ravaged homeland?

I think that Poland could become a successful country in the future with preferential economic agreements with the USA, UK, Canada etc. It could market itself as the 'gateway to Eastern Europe', acting as a major hub for investment, transport and trade- Italy, the Netherlands and Scandinavia aren't going to want to deal with Germany, France, Austria, Croatia or whats left of Russia for many years. Poland is now a blank slate, and unlike its neighbors, the international community will actually want to do business with it.

Depending on how much mess remains, Poland may be the only viable tourist destination in Eastern / Central Europe for many years as well.


An excellent conclusion to a superb timeline, Calbear.

 

[Sumeragi]

Just 190 million dead for a more-than-twenty-year conflict? That's a low figure in my books.

 

[Constantinople]

Just 190 million dead for a more-than-twenty-year conflict? That's a low figure in my books.

Can you think of any way in recent history where 10 million+ people a year are killed or murdered, every year for 20 years?

 

[Hendryk]

That was a great TL, grim but not in an unrealistic way. This world will bear the scars of war for generations to come, but at least the good guys won.

 

[Kissinger]

You made a Timeline that I think is very realisitic and scary at the same time. You showed again that the Nazis were nothing in reality and given ten years they could harm themselves. As George Orwell wrote "The Nazi's lost because Hitler conducted the War." or Robert Conroy "The war against the Axis wont be easy, they dont have General Hitler on their side." That is the thing everyone forgets about the Nazi's. Thank you for such an experience, if you do publish it, may I have a autographed copy?

 

[Sumeragi]

Can you think of any way in recent history where 10 million+ people a year are killed or murdered, every year for 20 years?

OTL World War II. 62,171,400 (low-end estimate) within 8 years.

Given now the National Socialists had the inter-conflict "peace" to carry on with even more genocide, I would have put total deaths at something 230 million. I definitely feel that the Greater German deaths are very low compared to the damages done.

 

[Constantinople]

OTL World War II. 62,171,400 (low-end estimate) within 8 years.

Which is three million less per years than ATL's two decade WWII. And there were 10 years of large non action meaning that the real deaths per year was much higher...

 

[M. A. Dickens]

Which is three million less per years than ATL's two decade WWII. And there were 10 years of large non action meaning that the real deaths per year was much higher...

Yeah, especially when you factor in the fact that the Nazis have more time to depopulate Eastern Europe...

As for the Atomic Four, my guess is US, UK, Australia and India.

Marc A

 

[mattep74]

What was the population of Germany and Russia before ww2 started?

 

[Crust3038]

What was the population of Germany and Russia before ww2 started?

In the case of Russia and the USSR it is difficult to say. Stalin falsified birth/population-count reports because he was himself executing a plan to "kolkhoz-ise" Ukraine, of course the Ukraians didn´t agree with that so he sent the Army in, closed their grain storage places and let 40-50 million Ukraians STARVE to death just during 5 years in the 1930´s!

That is not counting Stalins MASS deportation of ENTIRE nationalities and ethinics to different places OR the Gulag systems OR his own MASS liquidation of his percieved or true nemies!

It is estimated that before Operation Barbarossa begun Stallin killed off aproximately around 70 million people just in the USSR. 70 million is the higher estimate, historians agree on the 50+ millions. That is what I read, in this case I do not trust wikipedia *some users/profiles constantly try to edit out the higher numbers in this case*, I have those numbers from books about Stalins regime I have at home.

SUMMARY: It is a bi*ch to find out the true population numbers for the USSR or Russia specifically during the period of the late 1920s to early 1940s. Sorry.

 

[lloyd007]

I'm guessing Poland's resurrection into a modern state is mainly thanks to the expatriate community and 'immigration' aka colonization from the Allies. Either that or Poland is considered 'successful' only in a very relative sense as compared to the rest of Europe (which is definitely the more depressing scenario considering...)

My guess for the 'Atomic 4' are US/UK/India/ and one of either S. Africa, Brazil, Australia, Canada or 'China', with ANZAC and some other Latin American states being certainly capable of nukes but not willing to retain a stockpile.

As for the death toll that is only the number KILLED, when you couple that with the numbers of people never born and the undoubtedly much lower birth rates in Europe and the former USSR (because no one wants to have kids when those kids are going to suffer such a gruesome fate as being a slave to the Nazis), well... the demographic situation in Europe is going to be painfully skewed... worse... even with all the horrible losses the Germans suffered they are doubtlessly still the largest demographic still in Europe (or a close second behind the Italians) thanks to the Nazis Mao'esque population policies!

 

[basileus]

That was a great TL, grim but not in an unrealistic way. This world will bear the scars of war for generations to come, but at least the good guys won.

In concur it's great, grim and sobering reading, though, about realism... well, I have other thoughts.



(ok, it's all envy, CalBear)

 

[mattep74]

My guess is that Spain, Switzerland and Sweden will have a economic boom after the war when they supply every country in Europe with food, housing and infrastructure

 

[Layman in PA]

Calbear:

Is a figure established for U.S., UK, Commonwealth military deaths?

U.S.: 1-1.5 million maybe?

 

[CalBear]

Calbear:

Is a figure established for U.S., UK, Commonwealth military deaths?

U.S.: 1-1.5 million maybe?

U.S. losses are in the 800K range or close to double OTL, Commonwealth are are ~million. Allied losses in the extended Bombing offensive, against a Reich that was able to put 90% of its attention on the West after the fall of the USSR, were huge (it is worth recalling here that close to 1 in 4 U.S. Army losses IOTL WW II were actually Air Force and that RAF Bomber Command suffered over 55,000 KIA). Losses in the second Bombing Campaign (1954-1960) were also quite heavy. The Allies won the air war in a battle of attrition, as was the case IOTL, trading bombers (and their crews) for single seat fighters.

The rest of the total is, well, everyone else. French losses are higher than IOTL since they wound up getting manhandled by both the Germans AND the Allies (if you look at the post invasion battles you will see the French National Army is very active and very much used as cannon fodder).

The totals for some countries that didn't really get much of a bucher's bill IOTL are also significantly higher ATL. As an example, Norway's combat KIA IOTL were in the 3,000 range. ATL they lost that many troops on April 28th, 1958 when the Allies landed at Bergen.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Post-War Speculation

Just to speculate on some facts of the post-war world.

1. Poland in a few decades will most likely be one of Europes most prosperous countries.

2. Russia as a British protectorate in all but name, will not seriously be a great power in the next three centuries yet alone the next thirty years. i can see them undertaking a few campaigns to regain control of all Asian Russia, possibly to counter a resurgent Nationalist China. This excludes them from being a player in the post war world.

3. China will either be a politically unstable Nationalist state or quite possibly fragment into micro nations (Though i think its already trucated without some areas like Tibet). this won`t make it a player against America or the UK.

4. France is going to be the black sheep of Europe. Neither strong nor stable and will be the bane of her neighbors. Probably an area occupied for a brief time. Maybe terror attacks by neo-fascists will be an issue for years.

5. The rest of Western Europe will recover some but will have lost years of cultural heritage and other things. With the Allied Civil Affairs units running around they will most likely be democratic with out OTL leaning towards the nanny state. In fact I doubt there will be any socialist thought at all.I am predicting either a religious revival or a culture of cynicism in some countries.

6. With Asia and the Pacific falling heavily under Allied influence they too will either be pushed towards fledgeling democracies or become puppet states. Without communism perhaps the Korean intervention will be more about fighting some Nationalist uprising or something along those lines?

7. The two superpowers squaring off will be the UK and the US. It`s not inconceivable. The UK could be looking to keep her Empire alive as the Commonwealth and the US is looking to further her influence. I doubt itll be a militaristic rivalry but more a war of interests.

 

[radaron]

7. The two superpowers squaring off will be the UK and the US. It`s not inconceivable. The UK could be looking to keep her Empire alive as the Commonwealth and the US is looking to further her influence. I doubt itll be a militaristic rivalry but more a war of interests.

This is an interesting idea. Although, as in OTL, the Pacific commonwealth (ie Aus and NZ) become very closely aligned to the USA when it was realized that Britain could not stop the Japanese. The cultural influence of the USA was huge.

Admittedly, there will be a return to focus on Europe- and the close relationship with the UK, after Japan was dealt with. However, I think that the close military and cultural ties between the ANZACs and USA will remain strong.

I couldn't see those countries turning their backs on the USA if there is a dispute with the UK (which I assume will be something to do with decolonization).

 

[Workable Goblin]

7. The two superpowers squaring off will be the UK and the US. It`s not inconceivable. The UK could be looking to keep her Empire alive as the Commonwealth and the US is looking to further her influence. I doubt itll be a militaristic rivalry but more a war of interests.

The problem is that the UK is basically bankrupt, and being propped up by the US. They have no ability to realistically contest US decisions, beyond the time-honored method of persuading them otherwise. They can't get into a Cold War situation because they can't afford it, and the Americans can (sort of).

 

[lloyd007]

From what I'm reading the UK is/has become very good at reading the US and is better at playing the diplomacy game in its favor.

Some of my further speculations:

1. Decolonization will occur much more slowly, but in the end will be better off for many of the new African nations as the US/UK probably have more industrial and resource gathering interests in the area and don't want them destroyed. This provides a nice potential source of employment.

2. On the flip side the new governments aren't going to have nearly as much control or ability to nationalize their resources and as such a lot more of the profit from said resources is going to be heading to London and NYC.

3. On the flip/flip side this prevents the strongman asshats like Mobutu, Ghaddaffi, Saddam, Idi Amin and Mugabe from stealing wealth that should be for the people.

4. Latin America is much more stable and economically developed / prosperous than OTL thanks to US investments during the wartime period, presenting itself as 'The Stable Continent'.

5. India has pretty well matured as an economy by ATL 2011, probably gunning for the USA's position as #1 economy.

6. The USA / UK / ANZAC remains far more industrialized by ATL 2011. Far fewer people go to college since its just not needed. The world might not be as technologically developed, but OTOH the US wouldn't be having nearly the OTL angst over crumbling infrastructure since said infrastructure is replaced and rebuilt at a much cheaper cost than OTL.

7. AMTRAK doesn't exist... the NE corridor is serviced by bullet trains.

 

[Cylon_Number_14]

Another excellent update; 190 million dead? !That's a noticeable percentage of the world's population!

QUOTE]


I was just thinking that about that. Say over 20 years when one counts all the people alive at some time (including those who died every year) during those decades, you get maybe 4 billion...

190 million dead through time divided by 4 billion total living through time.... equals 4.75%. Basically, it's possible that about One out of every Twenty human beings alive between 1940 and 1960 died as a consequence of this WW2...


Edit: Yeah, my zeroes were off on the economic impact. I counted the first set of zeroes as "thousand" .

Seriously, I've had to read the last post 3 times in order to fully grasp the magnitude it.