Worldwar 1964: Discussion Thread

Sternberg

Banned
I've got pretty much nothing done on my new fictional universe, so I thought that some discussion would kickstart some work and progress on Worldwar 1964. Helps me get through the frustrations in my life when I have the will to write out my stuff, and being creative is what I need to be right now with some stuff that went on not too long ago.

So anyways, Worldwar 1964 revolves around a WWI that did not happen until the mid-1960s, despite the collapse of Austria-Hungary in 1939, another partition of Africa and of Indonesia in 1945 and the rise of a fascist-like government in Hungary in 1947. Franz Ferdinand is not assassinated, and instead, the European powers enter an arms race by the late 1910s. By the time WWI does happen, the atomic bomb had been introduced (1948), the first jet aircraft had been flown (1942), and man had launched the first artificial satellite into orbit (1961).

At the start of the Great War around December 1964, the world is politically similar to the mid-1910s, socially similar to the late 1930s and technologically similar to the early 1960s. Many nations had created new allies out of old enemies and new enemies out of old allies, and the world was divided by 3 power blocs, the Entente (Britain, France, Portugal, Netherlands, Denmark), the Central powers (Germany, Szegedist Hungary, Ottoman Empire, Italy, Serbia), and the Allied powers (United States, Russian Empire, Japan, Republic of China, Egypt).

Now that you kinda have an idea of what I'm going for, what I would like to discuss here is what sort of weapons and technology would have been developed before the Great War, what would old and new players in the colonial theater have named their colonies (like what the Hungarians and Serbians would have named places in their new colonies in what is now Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Puntland), how history progressed from 1914 to 1964, and how the Great War itself would have gone.

Anyways, a political map of the world on December 24th, 1964.

worldwar1964.png

worldwar1964.png
 

Hnau

Banned
This looks like a very interesting idea! I will be watching it. Though I have to admit, at first it seemed that this thread would be about the Race Invasion happening in 1964. You might get some people confused with this title. Maybe a better title would be The Great War in 1964. Or something like that. Great map!
 
Interesting premise, the only nitpick i see is the tecnological development, as without the two world wars things will go a lot backward, probably the level is late 40's and without nuclear weapons or at least just in the final stage of study before phisical experimental.
 

Sternberg

Banned
This looks like a very interesting idea! I will be watching it. Though I have to admit, at first it seemed that this thread would be about the Race Invasion happening in 1964. You might get some people confused with this title. Maybe a better title would be The Great War in 1964. Or something like that. Great map!

Thank you!

I don't think that the title should be a worry. Sure, people might mix it up at first glance, but once they read the thread itself, they won't be as confused. I'm happy with the title.

As with the map, I'm not sure. A part of me is telling me that I shouldn't have screwed with Africa as much, just changing Puntland to being under the control of Germany and Hungary, and the Belgian Congo being divided by Britain and France.

Interesting premise, the only nitpick i see is the tecnological development, as without the two world wars things will go a lot backward, probably the level is late 40's and without nuclear weapons or at least just in the final stage of study before phisical experimental.

Well, for the sake of what I have in mind for Worldwar 1964, instead of the world going to war in 1914, a Cold War-type scenario starts, hence why the tech level is more or less at our level, but with a 3-4 year delay.

Also, as I said, the world of Worldwar 1964 is politically like the mid-1910s, socially like the late 1930s and technologically like the early 1960s.

What has driven the US out of its historical isolationism, in a world with no world wars?

That's something I'm still thinking about. Perhaps the policies of a certain president that was in office sometime between 1914 and 1964 could have helped bring the United States out of isolationism and into the global arms race on the same side as Russia and Japan.

What has Russia done to avoid Revolution?

Here's what I'm thinking. The Russian Revolution doesn't happen until 1918, but with no WWI to weaken the Russian Empire, it goes on until the Bolsheviks are defeated sometime around 1922.
 
Here's what I'm thinking. The Russian Revolution doesn't happen until 1918, but with no WWI to weaken the Russian Empire, it goes on until the Bolsheviks are defeated sometime around 1922.
How will the Bolsheviks be defeated though? If memory serves, the Whites suffered from a great deal of factionalism and infighting which drove their defeat.

Btw, this TL brings to mind this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Storm_%28computer_game%29

EDIT: Btw, whats up with Indochina?
 

Sternberg

Banned
How will the Bolsheviks be defeated though? If memory serves, the Whites suffered from a great deal of factionalism and infighting which drove their defeat.

Btw, this TL brings to mind this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Storm_(computer_game)

EDIT: Btw, whats up with Indochina?

I'm still gonna think that up, but for now, let's just say that the Russian Empire defeated the Bolsheviks through sheer luck.

Yeah, Iron Storm. Sounds like a pretty interesting game.

As with Indochina, I forgot to mention that it was part of the 1945 colonial partitions as well. The British got Cambodia, Central Vietnam and a chunk of Siam, and the Siamese got Laos.
 
As with Indochina, I forgot to mention that it was part of the 1945 colonial partitions as well. The British got Cambodia, Central Vietnam and a chunk of Siam, and the Siamese got Laos.

Why would the French give up a crown jewel of their Empire, though? I mean, I think the French giving up Indochina is like the British giving up India.
 

Sternberg

Banned
Why would the French give up a crown jewel of their Empire, though? I mean, I think the French giving up Indochina is like the British giving up India.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Maybe France was forced to give up parts of Indochina in exchange for increased global and internal stability. And then again, if you look at Africa, France really did gain a heck of a lot compared to what it lost in Indochina. And if you look at it in a different way, maybe in another alternate universe, Britain was forced to give up parts of India while France kept all of Indochina.
 

Sternberg

Banned
The Taishō period in japan happened during the 1910's it was marked by a liberal movement does this mean japan is a republic or a constitutional monarchy?

It still has its Emperor. Of course, the Japanese could have become a republic in different timelines, but not Worldwar 1964's timeline.
 
How will the Bolsheviks be defeated though? If memory serves, the Whites suffered from a great deal of factionalism and infighting which drove their defeat.

Btw, this TL brings to mind this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Storm_(computer_game)

EDIT: Btw, whats up with Indochina?

Why would a Russia still united under the Czar have that much factionalism and infighting? The more liberal elements of the rebels would probably ally with the Czar in exchange for better say in government. I can't see the Bolsheviks doing to well ITTL as their radical slogan "peace and bread" would have absolutely no meaning, considering they're starting the war and all. This would probably be a civil war which is the straw that broke the camels back and forcing the liberalization of the Russian regime.
 

Sternberg

Banned
Why would a Russia still united under the Czar have that much factionalism and infighting? The more liberal elements of the rebels would probably ally with the Czar in exchange for better say in government. I can't see the Bolsheviks doing to well ITTL as their radical slogan "peace and bread" would have absolutely no meaning, considering they're starting the war and all. This would probably be a civil war which is the straw that broke the camels back and forcing the liberalization of the Russian regime.

I can see that in Worldwar 1964. Maybe the title of Prime Minister of the Russian Empire could have held more of a prominent role after the failed Bolshevik revolution.
 
So anyways, Worldwar 1964 revolves around a WWI that did not happen until the mid-1960s...


By the time WWI does happen, the atomic bomb had been introduced (1948), the first jet aircraft had been flown (1942), and man had launched the first artificial satellite into orbit (1961).

At the start of the Great War around December 1964, the world is politically similar to the mid-1910s, socially similar to the late 1930s and technologically similar to the early 1960s.


View attachment 162329


The above covers the most important issues. Politically like the 1910's implies great power politics with the different powers competing for territory, power, and influence BUT while following certain 'rules.' Rogue nation states are not tolerated and there are limits to what a country can do while playing the 'game.' Overall a worldwide version of the European balance of powers.

Socially like the 1930's implies strong senses of nationalism and idealism. People both striving to build and maintain empires and to free themselves from these same empires. The concept of nobility is on the way out but not dead. Britain, Italy, and other nations were constitutional monarchies at this time. Though I suspect no one believes in divine right or an authoritarian monarchy.

Since the Russian revolution failed communism is likely discredited; though there may still be idealists who believe it can work since they have never seen in the real world.

Technologically like the 1960's with jet fighters, satellites, and atomic bombs. Essentially a technology level sufficient to bring on a nuclear appocalypse and make even conventional warfare devastating on a level even beyond our own WW2.

Now there are two vital questions; 1) have atomic weapons ever been used in anger in this world? If so in what circumstances? Between major powers or as the ultimate way to put down a rebellious populace? 2) How are they viewed? If you can put a satellite in orbit it seems obvious there will be ballistic missiles as well as bomber able to carry nukes. Mobile launchers and nuclear subs would also fit in this level of technology. Is each nation free to choose it's own nuclear policy? Or is there international agreement these weapons can only be used as a last resort?

If this is a world with a political mindset similar to the 1910's it's very possible that all nations with these weapons have agreed they can only be used as a last resort. Their existence could also lead to a return to a Middle Ages concept of war based on the idea of limited war for limited gains.

This World war One might be fought with the understanding that neither side can win a 100% victory over the other. That at some point there wil have to be negotiated settlement since any country that is pushed to far can choose the nuclear option.

Even if the above were the case a great war involving say a dozen nuclear powers would be unbelievably dangerous. The only way to avoid nuclear disaster may be to have the 'rules' spelled out very clearly to all the combatants. Perhaps there might even be a 'one to one rule.' If one nuke is used by the enemy you are entitled to use one. A concept of limited nuclear exchange; so even if one is used it might not lead to extinction but might be a way of bringing your enemy to the peace table.

 

Sternberg

Banned


Now there are two vital questions; 1) have atomic weapons ever been used in anger in this world? If so in what circumstances? Between major powers or as the ultimate way to put down a rebellious populace? 2) How are they viewed? If you can put a satellite in orbit it seems obvious there will be ballistic missiles as well as bomber able to carry nukes. Mobile launchers and nuclear subs would also fit in this level of technology. Is each nation free to choose it's own nuclear policy? Or is there international agreement these weapons can only be used as a last resort?

If this is a world with a political mindset similar to the 1910's it's very possible that all nations with these weapons have agreed they can only be used as a last resort. Their existence could also lead to a return to a Middle Ages concept of war based on the idea of limited war for limited gains.

This World war One might be fought with the understanding that neither side can win a 100% victory over the other. That at some point there wil have to be negotiated settlement since any country that is pushed to far can choose the nuclear option.

Even if the above were the case a great war involving say a dozen nuclear powers would be unbelievably dangerous. The only way to avoid nuclear disaster may be to have the 'rules' spelled out very clearly to all the combatants. Perhaps there might even be a 'one to one rule.' If one nuke is used by the enemy you are entitled to use one. A concept of limited nuclear exchange; so even if one is used it might not lead to extinction but might be a way of bringing your enemy to the peace table.


Nuclear weapons would largely be viewed as an absolute last resort, and the nuclear powers of the world would likely have made an agreement to use them in a limited way, and only if they absolutely needed to. The "one for one" policy with nuclear weapons would more than likely be utilized during the war.

Also, since I forgot, I'll add a list of the nuclear powers of the world here.

Britain
France
United States
Russian Empire
Japan
Germany
Hungary
Ottoman Empire
Italy
 
Top