Alternate History: Your American Overlords

[Erroneous]

What would have happened if the United States didn't rapidly demilitarize after dropping the bombs on Japan? I realize the war and Truman had grown very unpopular by this time, but beside sentiment they were in a very unique position to continue exerting their military force around the world.

A ground war in the USSR was certainly impossible, but having a lead in nuclear technology along with setting up bases in Scandinavia(most probably Norway) and/or Japan/China they could have reached many Soviet population centers with atom bombs. If they continued their war-time research pace it is also likely they would have been able to weaponize Hydrogen Bombs and ICBM's much sooner than the Soviets.

The United States would not have been able to extend as much economic aid to the wartorn states of Europe, but I don't think they would have had to worry about any reprisal. The USSR was universally seen as threat to the West at this time, although a necessary ally in the war with Hitler. The Soviet Union was an impressive ground force, but it seems unlikely that they could have projected any force to American interests. They might have tried to attack our European allies, but again I doubt this would have threatened the US even if some of the NATO countries decided to ally with the russians.

While we could not completely conquer the Soviet Union I think a strong military push at the very onset of the cold war, could have left the United States the unquestioned super power to this day. There would have been no need for a United Nations and the United States could have selected the countries it rehabilitated more carefully following the war. We would still need to import their raw materials and exploit their consumer base.

Do you think this would have been possible? What could have stopped an aggressive US immediately following the surrender of Japan? Just something interesting to reflect on as US power is slipping away and we are entering a more multi-national world with China at the forefront.

[Haeso]

What would have happened if the United States didn't rapidly demilitarize after dropping the bombs on Japan? I realize the war and Truman had grown very unpopular by this time, but beside sentiment they were in a very unique position to continue exerting their military force around the world.

A ground war in the USSR was certainly impossible, but having a lead in nuclear technology along with setting up bases in Scandinavia(most probably Norway) and/or Japan/China they could have reached many Soviet population centers with atom bombs. If they continued their war-time research pace it is also likely they would have been able to weaponize Hydrogen Bombs and ICBM's much sooner than the Soviets.

The United States would not have been able to extend as much economic aid to the wartorn states of Europe, but I don't think they would have had to worry about any reprisal. The USSR was universally seen as threat to the West at this time, although a necessary ally in the war with Hitler. The Soviet Union was an impressive ground force, but it seems unlikely that they could have projected any force to American interests. They might have tried to attack our European allies, but again I doubt this would have threatened the US even if some of the NATO countries decided to ally with the russians.

While we could not completely conquer the Soviet Union I think a strong military push at the very onset of the cold war, could have left the United States the unquestioned super power to this day. There would have been no need for a United Nations and the United States could have selected the countries it rehabilitated more carefully following the war. We would still need to import their raw materials and exploit their consumer base.

Do you think this would have been possible? What could have stopped an aggressive US immediately following the surrender of Japan? Just something interesting to reflect on as US power is slipping away and we are entering a more multi-national world with China at the forefront.

Capitalizing on our nuclear arms advantage we could have controlled most if not all of the world yes.

[alfaroverall]

Truman, having only just recently had his approval rating record broken by George W. Bush, could not possibly have done that without having the White House marched upon and being literally murdered by his own populace. The Army probably would have simply let the citizens pass as well, due to their disgust with him; they might even join in themselves. And by the time Eisenhower was elected, the Cold War was already too deep to attempt such things.

A more interesting speculation, IMO, is what would've happened if someone killed the guy who shot Archduke Ferdinand (and perhaps all the others involved in the plot to do so)? Would WWI have been started by something else? If not, would WWII have happened in some form?

[Haeso]

Truman, having only just recently had his approval rating record broken by George W. Bush, could not possibly have done that without having the White House marched upon and being literally murdered by his own populace. By the time Eisenhower was elected, the Cold War was already too deep to attempt such things.

A more interesting speculation, IMO, is what would've happened if someone killed the guy who shot Archduke Ferdinand? Would WWI have been started by something else?

Depends on how the populace reacted and how effective propaganda was. Wiping out the soviet union could have probably been supported right after the war. And WWI? Most likely, it was just a tipping point, something else would have opened that can of worms eventually. Likely within a year.

[Erroneous]

Truman, having only just recently had his approval rating record broken by George W. Bush, could not possibly have done that without having the White House marched upon and being literally murdered by his own populace. The Army probably would have simply let the citizens pass as well, due to their disgust with him; they might even join in themselves. And by the time Eisenhower was elected, the Cold War was already too deep to attempt such things.


Right I wonder if FDR never died how he would have handled nuclear weaponry, I think he might have been more popular and hawkish than Truman. FDR for Emperor.

The way I see the offensive continuing doesn't rely on a strong ground presence. We could have been brining soliders home and relied mostly on the dropping bombs. Our ultimate effectiveness would hinge on our ability to fortify our forward position(could we have used carriers in the arctic?) and how quickly we could develop ICBM and H-bomb technologies. Would the scientists have continued working as quickly once we were no longer facing a defenseive war?

[akrippler]

What if WWII droned on for 10-15 more years, the germans were already years ahead of us, rocket powerd planes, air to air missles. They would have completley dominated the skies, wich would have made it that much easier to move on to the rest of the world.

Add that to the fact that every tank they produced could fire atleast 2x as far, had more armor, and even the panthers were teh first tanks to get a independant suspension to allow them to fire while on the move. IMO it was just matter of time before the germans won the war, if we didnt do something drastic.

[Niles]

What if WWII droned on for 10-15 more years, the germans were already years ahead of us, rocket powerd planes, air to air missles. They would have completley dominated the skies, wich would have made it that much easier to move on to the rest of the world.

Add that to the fact that every tank they produced could fire atleast 2x as far, had more armor, and even the panthers were teh first tanks to get a independant suspension to allow them to fire while on the move. IMO it was just matter of time before the germans won the war, if we didnt do something drastic.

It is indeed a sad story.

[Haeso]

What if WWII droned on for 10-15 more years, the germans were already years ahead of us, rocket powerd planes, air to air missles. They would have completley dominated the skies, wich would have made it that much easier to move on to the rest of the world.

Add that to the fact that every tank they produced could fire atleast 2x as far, had more armor, and even the panthers were teh first tanks to get a independant suspension to allow them to fire while on the move. IMO it was just matter of time before the germans won the war, if we didnt do something drastic.

... what are you talking. Did you read the OP?

[Erroneous]

What if WWII droned on for 10-15 more years, the germans were already years ahead of us, rocket powerd planes, air to air missles. They would have completley dominated the skies, wich would have made it that much easier to move on to the rest of the world.

Add that to the fact that every tank they produced could fire atleast 2x as far, had more armor, and even the panthers were teh first tanks to get a independant suspension to allow them to fire while on the move. IMO it was just matter of time before the germans won the war, if we didnt do something drastic.

Yea this is the shape most alternate WWII histories play out. The thing is everybody hated the Germans so I don't think there is an equilibrium they could have reached where we let them just keep all of Europe. The US and Russia wouldn't have let all of Europe be a fascist state.

(This sentiment thing is a reason why I don't think the Archduke assassination was that crucial of an event either. The dominos were in place it just needed something to set them off, if not the assassination it would have been something else. changing the timing may have changed certain things, but a world war was still inevitable)

THe US on the other hand could have been seen as a great freedom fighter. The West would have supported them over the Russians almost certainly. After crippling Russia we could have kept them happy enough as well.

[Niles]

Yea this is the shape most alternate WWII histories play out. The thing is everybody hated the Germans so I don't think there is an equilibrium they could have reached where we let them just keep all of Europe. The US and Russia wouldn't have let all of Europe be a fascist state.


Everybody did not hate the Germans.

[Cadros]

Here's an alternate history for you.

The United Provinces of North America...under the rightful crown Elizabeth II :sly:

[Chankeen]

(This sentiment thing is a reason why I don't think the Archduke assassination was that crucial of an event either.

I think that is our reductionist tendency when dealing with history. Simplify things to personalities/bite sized events, to make the more 'understandable'.
Thinking WW1 wouldn't have happened without the archduke assassination is like thinking WW2 wouldn't have started without the Polish border incidents in mid/late august 1939.
The assassination probably did result in the particular day being chosen for mobilization, and it certainly is possible that the war wouldn't not have started without this incident, it seems highly improbable.

[tallefred]

A more interesting speculation, IMO, is what would've happened if someone killed the guy who shot Archduke Ferdinand (and perhaps all the others involved in the plot to do so)? Would WWI have been started by something else? If not, would WWII have happened in some form?

Of course it would have. That was just the final straw. The war was all ready to happen, it just needed something to push people over the edge.

[Chankeen]

One of my favourite alternate history novels is Man in a High Castle by Philip K Dick.

Story takes place late 50s, Germany controls east coast of USA, Japan west coast. There is a character in the story who writes an alternate history as if the Allies won -everyone always ridicules him.

[akrippler]

... what are you talking. Did you read the OP?

Its another way all of this could have played out. It is directly related to the thread. What do you want from me.

Snip

I was thinking more along the lines that in another 15 years or so, We would not have been able to stop them, not just not get into it.

[Haeso]

Its another way all of this could have played out. It is directly related to the thread. What do you want from me.



I was thinking more along the lines that in another 15 years or so, We would not have been able to stop them, not just not get into it.

What did I want? Some context. Like oh I don't know, the basis of what causes your theory of an alternate timeline?

[akrippler]

What did I want? Some context. Like oh I don't know, the basis of what causes your theory of an alternate timeline?

The fact that the germans were already 10 or so years ahead of us in certain aspects of warfare technology.

[Haeso]

The fact that the germans were already 10 or so years ahead of us in certain aspects of warfare technology.

... No... I mean where does history diverge. The basis of your alternate timeline is us never entering the war. Not Germany's technological advantage.

[akrippler]

... No... I mean where does history diverge. The basis of your alternate timeline is us never entering the war. Not Germany's technological advantage.

I actually said if we enterd the war 10 years later, not never enterd it.

But anyways its a what if situation why do I have to explain myself. All I said was that had the war droned on for another 10-15 years then we could have lost.

Just to humor you, say our aircraft carriers were docked during pearl harbor.

[inox]

Just to humor you, say our aircraft carriers were docked during pearl harbor.

Or the Soviet Union and Germany had not fought against each other. Ok, they had very different ideologies, but so did the Soviet Union and the USA.

[Haeso]

I actually said if we enterd the war 10 years later, not never enterd it.

But anyways its a what if situation why do I have to explain myself. All I said was that had the war droned on for another 10-15 years then we could have lost.

Just to humor you, say our aircraft carriers were docked during pearl harbor.

in your first post you didn't mention we never joined the war, therefore it had no context, therefore it was idiotic. Essentially you just said "if the war went on another 15 years" Without fucking giving a reason why lol.

[akrippler]

in your first post you didn't mention we never joined the war, therefore it had no context, therefore it was idiotic. Essentially you just said "if the war went on another 15 years" Without fucking giving a reason why lol.

Whatever dude if you wanna make up a arguement out of nothing just because your ass is sore go ahead.

Thing is I dont have to give a reason for anything this is a what if thread.

I said it before If you want to continue with your selective reading I can say it again. I was just trying to get the point across that GErmany was about 10 years or so ahead of us in certain aspects of technology, aspects that could have certainly changed the tide of the war in their favor, given enough time to fully implement them.

[Haeso]

Whatever dude if you wanna make up a arguement out of nothing just because your ass is sore go ahead.

Thing is I dont have to give a reason for anything this is a what if thread.

I said it before If you want to continue with your selective reading I can say it again. I was just trying to get the point across that GErmany was about 10 years or so ahead of us in certain aspects of technology.

Which has very little to do with the thread, your original post said if the war continued for 10-15 years we'd have lost, with zero context. If you don't understand why context is important, well... not much to say to you other than lol.

[akrippler]

Which has very little to do with the thread, your original post said if the war continued for 10-15 years we'd have lost, with zero context. If you don't understand why context is important, well... not much to say to you other than lol.

How does it have little to do with the thread? The thread is about a possible alternate history concerning WWII. I threw out another possible ending to WWII.

The fact is your vagina is full of sand, so youve taken it to the boards.

Hell all the OP said was "what if" we blah blah blah after taking out japan, how is what I said any different.

[Haeso]

How does it have little to do with the thread? The thread is about a possible alternate history concerning WWII. I threw out another possible ending to WWII.

The fact is your vagina is full of sand, so youve taken it to the boards.

Nope, the fact is you gave an alternate ending without giving the reason of why it diverged. When you talk about an alternative like this, the point of diversion is the single most important thing. Not mentioning the point of diversion is.. absurd, I'll chalk it up to you simply not understanding what 'context' is and why it is important.

[akrippler]

Nope, the fact is you gave an alternate ending without giving the reason of why it diverged. When you talk about an alternative like this, the point of diversion is the single most important thing. Not mentioning the point of diversion is.. absurd, I'll chalk it up to you simply not understanding what 'context' is and why it is important.

So lets recap.

I didnt give you a reason WHY I said something.

Your vagina becomes full of sand.

I fail to see where this concerns me.

[Haeso]

So lets recap.

I didnt give you a reason WHY I said something.

Your vagina becomes full of sand.

I fail to see where this concerns me.

no it seems like the only thing going on here is your post was a thinly veiled hard on for germany, and you saw this thread as an opportunity to express that you have it. Your first post in this thread was retarded. "The war continues for 10-15 years and germany would have won" is indeed, retarded. If you give no reason for the divergence then you weren't thinking clearly and left out the context and assumed everyone else would get it, the reason you weren't thinking clearly is obviously a manifestation of your hard on for WWII Germany.

[saris]

ooo fun thread, but what IF the after WW1 our president did not have the spanish flue while setting ecconomic sanctions for Germany.
Whole damn WW2 may have been avoided.

blame it on the virus

[akrippler]

no it seems like the only thing going on here is your post was a thinly veiled hard on for germany, and you saw this thread as an opportunity to express that you have it. Your first post in this thread was retarded. "The war continues for 10-15 years and germany would have won" is indeed, retarded. If you give no reason for the divergence then you weren't thinking clearly and left out the context and assumed everyone else would get it, the reason you weren't thinking clearly is obviously a manifestation of your hard on for WWII Germany.

SUBJECT
Germany could have beat us given another 10-15 years.
CONTEXT FOR THE SUBJECT
They were ahead of us in terms of warfare tech by about 10 years or so.

The fact is everyone else DID understand exactly what I was saying besides you. (look back on the few people that quoted me and talked about it)

What happned is you were looking for a reason to say something stupid to somone on the intertruck. Now you realize you were wrong and your trying to cover it up with stabs at some imaginary fixation with germany that you yourself created.

[Haeso]

SUBJECT
Germany could have beat us given another 10-15 years.
CONTEXT FOR THE SUBJECT
They were ahead of us in terms of warfare tech by about 10 years or so.

The fact is everyone else DID understand exactly what I was saying besides you. (look back on the few people that quoted me and talked about it)

What happned is you were looking for a reason to say something stupid to somone on the intertruck. Now you realize you were wrong and your trying to cover it up with stabs at some imaginary fixation with germany that you yourself created.

Of the two who quoted you, one was truly a response to your alternate timeline, erroneous' post which after reading it actually makes me question if knew what you meant to begin with. So clearly this is a foolish assertion. 1 for 2 doesn't say much for your context, if that 1 is indeed one. It was an ambiguous post, and the fact that you still defend it is hilarious. Nice use of "everyone else" to make it seem more valid though, amusing. And keep it up with the WWII germany hardon!

[akrippler]

Of the two who quoted you, one was truly a response to your alternate timeline, erroneous' post which after reading it actually makes me question if knew what you meant to begin with. So clearly this is a foolish assertion. 1 for 2 doesn't say much for your context, if that 1 is indeed one. It was an ambiguous post, and the fact that you still defend it is hilarious. Nice use of "everyone else" to make it seem more valid though, amusing. And keep it up with the WWII germany hardon!

So this is pretty much a I give up you were right post. K thx.

[Erroneous]

It's fun to try and make Germany come out on top, and a lot of times this is what happens in the alternate histories. I thought it would be interesting to have the Americans become the ultrapower, but I guess other people aren't that interested int he prospect. I was hoping to at least rile up some Yuropeens.

One interesting parallel is with Bush responding "defensively" to the threat of terrorism and then shifting gears to go on the offensive against Iraq. Its a major difference in scale and similarity (a facist threat being much harder to tie to the Soviets then making Iraq a homebase for terrorism).

[Hawk Ocularis]

Churchill wanted to go to war with Russia after Germany was defeated
because Britain and France declared war on Germany over Poland
Russia seized half of Poland in 1939 and wanted to keep it
Churchill wanted to restore Poland and all pre 1939 borders
Truman stupidly thought he could control Stalin so persuaded Churchill to back down
Truman thought the Atom bomb was top sceret but Stalin already knew about it

but if the Americans had pushed it what then a war with Stalins russia a man who killed millions of his own people
large parts of Europe would now be glowing from nuclear radiation