The Most Plausible "Three Superpowers" Scenario

[Decrian]

Imperial Germany + Europe, Russia, USA (+UK maybe)

 

[Henriksson]

If we're going by WWII-centrism and ignoring the whole Great War and Interwar thing, I'd say a European Federation consisting of France, Great Britain, West Germany, Benelux and maybe Italy is the closest thing comparable to the US and Soviet Union.

 

[B_Munro]

As mentioned, this is all too WWII-centric. We are stuck with the Soviet Union, which is quite likely to undergo a collapse of varying degrees of messiness before the end of the century, a China still recovering from warlordism and wracked with Communist rebellion which is unlikely to achive superpower status until _after_ the Soviets hit their crisis (and when, exactly, is the latest date after which these three superpowers are supposed to be coexisting?) , and a British Imperial federation with a 1930s POD is highly unlikely, unless you give Churchill Mule[1] -like mind-control powers. Japan is screwed in almost all WWII scenarios in which they participate. Which means for the 20th century you're pretty much stuck with the US, USSR and some sort of closer European federation under French or French/British leadership, if you want any sort of plausibility.

Now, if you push back the PODs to 1900, you can have a China which avoids the whole warlord period (see, Hendryk's Superpower Empire), a successfully modernizing non-Commie Russia, and perhaps Japan (depends on whether they can hold onto Korea/grow their population/create an effective Eastern alliance system), and (lower probability) Second Reich dominated Europe or more successfully modernizing unified India or (lower still, but not as bad as post-1920s) Federal Brit Empire.

Bruce





[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule_(Foundation)

 

[Dunois]

Mine is easy to guess :
United States, Anglo-French Union, Soviet Union

A British Imperial Federation lacks the manpower required for superpower status, since India and swathes of Africa would have to go for obvious reasons.

 

[Some Bloke]

Talking of which, how's the update going?

My idea is US, USSR and Entene (in that order). Post war the French set about setting themselves up
as top dow in post war western Europe, while Britain concentrates more on trying (with limited success) in
creating a more cohesive Commonwealth. One of the main reasons the Entente remains in 3rd place is
just that, it's a formal alliance between 2 nations both of which consider themselves to be head of
2 very different organisations. When the Soviet union collapses however ...

 

[Beedok]

Was torn between Britain and China. Voted Britain.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Another slightly three-way WWII I once read- 1918 and 1940. It had the Trinity Bloc [Roman Pact (European fascist nations + fascist Mexico), Japan, and neo-tsarist Russia] vs. the Combined Powers League (British Empire, Germany and Austro-Hungary, Turkey, and Scandinavia) vs. the American Alliance of Democracy (U.S., Latin America, Quebec)

 

[Snake Featherston]

World War I ends in a German victory, thus leading the Germans to economically cripple a great deal of Europe for their own benefit, but leaving the Soviet Union intact. The Second World War results in a Soviet-US-UK victory, but without the apocalyptic nature of OTL WWII leaves Germany in a position to be a third power in rivalry with the United States and the Soviet Union.

 

[WeisSaul]

If Germany never signs the axis pact with Japan, it would still have Sino-German cooperation agreement even after it is defeated in World War 2. Considering Japan always preferred the nationalists to the communists, Japanese investment could find its way into the Republic of China. US businessmen would also take advantage of the ripe investment opportunities a Nationalist China would offer in the short term. It would take time, likely 20-30 years after a decisive Nationalist victory in the civil war which would likely be 1947. By 1967-1977, China and Japan, both having raging economies, would effectively be providing a balance of power in East Asia. Though Japan would probably have to be US backed, considering the massive population difference would give China an advantage if the two develop in the same manner at the same time.

 

[B_Munro]

World War I ends in a German victory, thus leading the Germans to economically cripple a great deal of Europe for their own benefit, but leaving the Soviet Union intact.

How do the Soviets avoid being Brest-Litovsk'ed?

The Second World War results in a Soviet-US-UK victory, but without the apocalyptic nature of OTL WWII leaves Germany in a position to be a third power in rivalry with the United States and the Soviet Union.

A limited aims war? Soviets take back Ukraine, Belorus, Baltics, while UK and US pry France and low countries and Balkans and Italy out of German sphere, but US-UK alliance decides to leave Germany (after a local change in government) in control Poland, Austria, Bohemia to prevent Soviets from dominating Eastern Europe? (Soviets grumble Stab In Back for next 50 years).

Bruce

 

[Snake Featherston]

1) They don't, but the Germans will have increasing problems maintaining controls over regions in a fashion explicitly to loot them for their benefit, and the weaker they get in the process the more Soviet opportunity grows, amplified by both British and US foreign subsidies as the Germans might smash the Allies in 1917-8 with the right combination of luck and Allied weakness but that will be as indecisive superficially as 1917-8 was for the Allies. And this is without factoring in what the Soviets *will* be doing after the war, namely financing more trouble for Germany than the Germans can adequately counter without breaking their own empire in the process.

2) More or less, yes. As the Soviets will have rather greater problems against any German Empire as opposed to the OTL Nazi Germany, for one thing the German Empire's political aims are more sophisticated than "Smash crush destroy" and the German Empire will be more mechanized than the Nazi armies were. By converse the German Empire's armies will also have a much more difficult time adapting modern tactics than the Nazis did, while dismissing out of hand any possibility that the Soviets would be capable of seriously mauling and outright destroying their armies and thus refusing to adapt before the too-little-too-late phase.

 

[Jasen777]

I voted for: United States, French-led European Federation/Union, Soviet Union

With a WW2 POD it just doesn't seem likely that the U.K. and U.S. are going to have a long-term serious split. And a EU analog is the only bloc left that can even pretend to superpower status.

 

[B_Munro]

Can't see the Soviets outright _regaining_ the Ukraine, etc. without an actual war, so presumably at some point the Germans scream and leap at the Soviets, leading to the US and UK piling on: presumeably the UK has some sort of alliance with the Soviets for lack of anything better on the continent.

The USSR, without the resources of the Ukraine, will be resource and food-poorer, and less populous: this can be compensated for with superior military organization and leadership, probably want Someone Else Than Stalin in charge. (A more "moderate", less blood-soaked USSR would also make a more tolerable ally for the UK).

Bruce

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I don't get why the first choice has more votes than the second. An Anglo-French Union would have more colonies, if they handled the situation correctly. It'd be much stronger than one or the other empires.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Can't see the Soviets outright _regaining_ the Ukraine, etc. without an actual war, so presumably at some point the Germans scream and leap at the Soviets, leading to the US and UK piling on: presumeably the UK has some sort of alliance with the Soviets for lack of anything better on the continent.

The USSR, without the resources of the Ukraine, will be resource and food-poorer, and less populous: this can be compensated for with superior military organization and leadership, probably want Someone Else Than Stalin in charge. (A more "moderate", less blood-soaked USSR would also make a more tolerable ally for the UK).

Bruce

Eh, Stalin's USSR *did* overrun half the continent with its logistics provided in no small part by the USA IOTL. ITTL, the Germans will have been making themselves increasingly ruling a house of cards and after 20 years the Soviet Union's precursor won't be well-remembered and will at least initially look like the better option. I don't think a USSR controlling the Baltic states, Belarus, and Ukraine would worry the West all that much. A USSR controlling the boundaries of OTL Warsaw Pact IMHO is out of the question if for no other reason than that the German Empire will be far too formidable to crush the way OTL Nazi Germany fell apart under its own mostly-unmodern army against the Soviets with their firepower + US trucks.

The USSR hardly needs to moderate so much as Imperial Germany needs to just be itself for 20 years. The USSR was also not one to seek to overextend itself under Stalin (which it actually might well do under someone else leading to a different two-superpower/no superpowers scenario than the OP specifies) and would have enough problems controlling its new territories to actually seriously want rule of all of Central Europe.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

What about other alternate ideologies, like Syndicalism?

I made one of these threads, once. This is my analysis:

I think I’m going to organize a list of all possible three-way (or more sided) Cold Wars based on a POD in or around WWII. I’d really, really, really appreciate any evaluation of these possibilities, as well as any suggestions for other wars:

1. NATO vs. Warsaw Pact vs. Eastern Pact (China)

This is the one I was discussing in the beginning. Basically U.S. against Russia against a more potent and imperialistic China. However, I don’t know if the Chinese would do much more other than meddle more in Asia, possibly intervening in the Vietnam War, Cambodia, etc.

2. NATO vs. Warsaw Pact vs. Nonaligned Movement

I found this discussion about the Bandung Pact. Here, China fully joins the nonaligned movement, which becomes an actual power bloc rather than a movement. The only problem here is that the non-aligned movement had so many minor powers that were so different from each other- Red China, India, Indonesia, Yugoslavia, Egypt, etc.- that the organization seems to have as likely a chance to fall apart as did the Chinese Eastern Pact.

However, if the NAM does find a way to bridge their differences and form a strong military bond besides political and economic ones, it would be a truly powerful global bloc. I think unlike NATO or the Warsaw Pact, this bloc would have no desires to spread its influence, but to rather stay defensive and vigilant. It would have much of the world (and Third World), and seem awfully imposing to both Moscow and Washington. A war between itself and the USSR would be as crazy and dramatic as the time in For All Time when Yugoslavia and several of the east European satellites tried to secede from the Soviets, combined with the nuclear confrontation near the end.

3. Allies vs. Axis vs. Comintern

I’m going to start another thread for this when I get a chance. I’m writing a TL based on Turtledove’s “Ready for the Fatherland” short story.

4. Allies vs. Comintern vs. Japan

I found this ATL online, and I’m going to start a thread about it. It’s very well-written. Basically, Japan gets nuclear weapons in World War II, survives whilst Germany falls, and gets into a conflict where Mao Zedong is killed and Stalin creates a Russo-Chinese Federation.

Interesting, but I’m kind of leery of Cold Wars with Japan as a side. Sure, in this case they’re very powerful, but unlike OTL Cold War, Japan doesn’t seem to be very interested outside Asia. The Japanese militarists were fanatics, but they didn’t have much of an ideology to export besides pan-Asianism. Though they would have nukes ready, they don’t seem to be as defiant as other Cold War sides- sure the militarists were suicidally ready to fight, but I don’t think they’re willing to fight a nuclear war just for Asia.

I think in any Cold War involving a Greater Japanese Empire or Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, it’s always more regional and conventional, and more relaxed than if, say, the Allies vs. Comintern vs. Nazis fight.

5. Allies vs. Nazis vs. Japan

I got the idea for this one from an Alternate History Travel Guide entry where the U.S. becomes a technocracy, so I’m not too sure of its plausibility. Basically, the Axis wins the war because the U.S. remains isolationist, divide up Russia between them, and a three-sided Cold War emerges.

Canada was incorporated into the Technate in 1942, following the collapse of the British Empire during the Second World War. Canadian Technocrats convinced parliament that the choice was one of economic symbiosis in the Technate or total domination by a victorious Third Reich. The Combined Forces of the Technate moved into the former colonies of the Caribbean in order to integrate them into the "Total Economic Unit (TEU)," and to prevent Hitler from using them as bases. Later, Mexico and the Central American countries would be included in the "Outer Economic Sphere," but were incorporated in the TEU in 1961.

A three-way Cold War broke out in the 1950s between the Technate, the Third Reich, and the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Technate's invention of the Atomic Bomb in 1955 gave them the edge, an advantage they tried to maintain through technology and innovative military doctrine. The Third Reich attempted to maintain an armed posture capable of rapid, crippling attack, and Japan's GEACPS had sheer manpower with which to dominate. Efforts were made by the three superpowers to win control of Siberia (which ended up under Japanese control), Africa (Dominated by Germany since 1949), and Australia (neutral by the mutual agreement of the Technate and Japan). A Third World War almost broke out in 1966 when Germany and Japan attempted to send forces to Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. Land, Sea, and Air Forces of the Technate managed to thwart this rare show of Axis Cooperation just short of all-out war.

I doubt this one very much. First of all, I don’t think Japan would be able to take over much of Russia, and so would be left with a sphere of influence much smaller than the Nazis’. Second, I highly, highly doubt that Japan could remain in control over the masses of Asia for too long. Third, I doubt that the U.S. would stay isolationist while Europe, Asia, and Africa falls to the Axis.

Does anyone think this TL could work with a regular United States instead of the weird technocratic one?

Note: Allies basically means NATO, and Warsaw Pact means Comintern or USSR.

So… please comment on any of these Cold War scenarios, and include the number. Please give any suggestions on them or any other possible Cold Wars.

 

[B_Munro]

Number 1 could work as sortof Evil Goatee-Wearing Version of Hendryk's TL: a Capitalist China which avoided the warlord period but ended up *Fascistic. In the immediate run it would be principally interested in its own sphere of influence, but the US will have some sharply contending interests in the Philippines, Japan, Indonesia, etc. (a nationalist, capitalist China might well be a hell of a lot fussier about the status of Chinese overseas and in SE Asia) which will lead to conflict, and as China develops the sort of conflicts we see arising today might occur decades earlier: struggles for influence over raw materials, access to oil, markets, etc. in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America...

2. Nonaligned movement? Probably requires Someone Else Than Mao running China: the core of such a movement would be an Indian-Chinese alliance, which at a stroke puts nearly a third of humanity in the Nonaligned camp. The main problem would be keeping the US and USSR from constantly detatching poorer nations through bribing the local dictator. If they form an alliance with Opec (which I see as partially overlapping) they might look very powerful indeed - control of resources - in the 70's.

3. Rather low probability outcome.

4, 5. Japan's eyes were definitely bigger than its stomach, and its hard to see where it becomes more than a regional problem in a Cold War situation. Vague possibilities arise in a situation where non-Japanese China is a North Korea/Khmer Rouge dystopia such that Manchuria and Korea find a continued Japanese presence preferable, but I suspect that in that universe Japan is a US ally...

(Silly idea: socialist-technocratic Japan as leader socialistic third-world movement opposed to US and fascist Russia?)

Bruce

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I also dug up that thread because I wanted to ask if Technocracy had any chance of becoming an ideology that could capture the heart of nations and become a political bloc like how liberal democracy, communism, and fascism did.

Also, the link in number 4 died. But this thread has the original post, it's too long for me to quote here and it's amusing. It's a very descriptive account of someone living in the Philippines in a world where the Japanese empire was still around. An excerpt:

This debacle showed the Allies that they had obviously met their
match and a ceasefire was drawn up in the Hawaii Conference of 1946,
the other factors being the developing distrust between the Socialist
nations now led by Stalin alone since Mao Tse Tsung died in the Korean
debacle, leading to the three-sided Cold War that lasted until the 60s.
The Philippines, or rather the current Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao
Protectorates, was probably one of the most influential factors in the
end of the Cold War situation and healing the rift between the Co-
Prosperity Sphere and the Western Democratic nations, but that comes
later.

 

[Delta Force]

The UK was a superpower (or very strong great power) until 1956. The Suez Crisis is widely brought up here in the US as an cautionary tale of a superpower being brought down due to too much debt. If it avoids Suez or has its desired outcome it could last longer as a superpower.

 

[naraht]

Without the United States?

Does anyone have any ideas on how to come up with three that don't include the United States? The only 20th century superpower combination that I can come up with off the top of my head that doesn't include the US is victorious Nazi Germany/Japan.