What ultimately happens to China without WWII in Europe?

WolfBear

Well-known member
What ultimately happens to China without WWII in Europe? For instance, what are the odds of the Communists still eventually coming to power there? And what are the odds that Japan will permanently keep Taiwan, Manchuria, and/or any other parts of China?
 

Emperor Tippy

Merchant of Death
Super Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Without WWII the entire world is utterly different, trying to game it out is basically pointless and impossible.

Just as one example, without WWII the British Empire likely remains intact. That alone utterly changes global politics for the next fifty years.

Or the fact that without WWII the Soviet Union is never really able to expand its borders and become the true global power that it became. Again, that entirely rewrites the next fifty years.

And what do you mean "without WWII in Europe"? I mean do the Nazi's still come to power in Germany and how much are they able to conquer without it being WWII?

Because say that the Nazi's stop at the Vistula River and set that as their border with the USSR before turning south and towards Turkey.

If the Nazi's are slightly more intelligent/less arrogant, they probably could have built a Nazi Empire across most of Europe that would last. Everything from France to Warsaw and south to Istanbul (excluding Italy) could fairly credibly become a permanent part of the Nazi Empire without "WWII in Europe" actually occurring. Stalin isn't going to join the fight if the Nazi's actually stop advacing the border at Warsaw, he's simply not in a position to do so. The British don't have the ability to land substantial forces on continental Europe. The US can't (and won't) move absent the USSR (and especially absent Pearl Harbor).

Nazi's secure Europe and then, in conjunction with the Italians and Spanish, block the Strait of Gibraltar (just mine the hell out of it) and the whole Med becomes effectively a private Axis lake.

How a Nazi unified Europe changes the global political equation is another one of those things that is basically impossible to game out.

Now start trying to figure out how some or all of these things interact with one another. A British Empire that has seen Europe fall to a German Empire is going to have very different geopolitical goals (and reach) than a British Empire that has exhausted itself fighting that German Empire and found itself reliant on the US. What are BE/USSR relations like with a Nazi Germany in the middle?

Hell, what is the global situation like when France is no longer a player at all?

What is the US like if it doesn't fight WWII in Europe? For one, it would very likely be far more focused on the Pacific theater while everyone else is far more focused on the European theater. For another, without the threat of the USSR unifying Europe the US is likely to make different policy choices in relation to Japan and the Pacific.

For example, trade with Europe means getting involved in the three way tug of war between the BE, Nazis, and USSR. Not going to be a lot of US investment or trade with European markets at the time. The Pacific though? That merely involves cutting a deal with the BE to some extent. You could easily see massive investment into China (not just in cash but in political bandwidth and military power as well) and it becoming basically a captive US market.

Basically, too many unknowns to give anything like an accurate answer.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
What is the US like if it doesn't fight WWII in Europe? For one, it would very likely be far more focused on the Pacific theater while everyone else is far more focused on the European theater. For another, without the threat of the USSR unifying Europe the US is likely to make different policy choices in relation to Japan and the Pacific.

I'm not sure that there would actually be a Pacific War without a European War.
 

Emperor Tippy

Merchant of Death
Super Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
But @Emperor Tippy, you just showed it's possible. Aren't there pages of threads showing it is?
Not in any kind of detail or with any kind of credibility.

Saying "shit is different" and "these are some of the highest level differences that you need to pay attention to" is drastically different from saying "this is what China would look like in a world without the European theater of WWII".

I mean just for starters, globalization exists because the US needed to bribe NATO into existence to counterbalance the USSR because global communism in control of the Eurasian landmass was an existential threat to the US.

A Nazi empire to counterbalance the USSR means no existential threat which means that the US doesn't need to bribe up NATO which means no globalization. That is the ENTIRE economic and grand strategic order of the past seventy years tossed out. That everything will be different is manifestly obvious, what those differences actually are is an entirely different story.

Or again, the British Empire is still around. Without the breaking of the British economy by having to fight WWII, the BE will remain extant and the US will not be in a position to break it. That single change, alone, is enough to make an unrecognizable global order. Just for starters, the British control all the ME oil in such a situation.

China is a nation that is almost entirely dependent on global geopolitical forces, trends, and issues that it was (and to some extent still is) utterly unable to influence. How China would be shaped with drastically different forces/trends/issues is impossible to answer, and that assumes that you are willing to make fiat decisions about what those initial changes are.

I'm not sure that there would actually be a Pacific War without a European War.
If Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, the pacific war occurs. If Japan doesn't attack Pearl Harbor, the US is unlikely to take military action.
 

stevep

Well-known member
I'm not sure that there would actually be a Pacific War without a European War.

I don't know. If there's no European war, say Hitler never comes to power or is removed and Germany gets some stable and responsible government then Britain, France and possibly the Netherlands will be interested in events in the Far East as well as the US. In fact with Europe peaceful they will have a lot more resources to commit to both securing their interests in the region and aiding China, especially Britain and France. That means aid will go to China via FIC from all three countries along with the Soviets probably sending aid via the north.

Similarly with Japan collapsing the Naval Treaty System even if the Nazis disappear there are going to be renewals of fleet by all the great powers. They would anyway with the age of many ships but the 35kton weight and a 14" or 16" gun limit as well as limits on total numbers could have stayed. This will put more stress on Japan as it will be aware its going to be out-built by at least two other powers.

Sooner or later Japan will either have to withdraw from China, or more likely make a suicidal bid to gain resources it can no longer get - either because of a boycott or simply they don't have the funds - and to try and cut off aid to China.

Its likely that Japan will go to war with the western powers and then be defeated, probably with markedly less early successes and hence a shorter conflict. You might see a clash between Soviet and western interests after the Japanese defeat so its possible that China might still suffer a communist take-over but probably more likely there will be a Chinese communist state in the NE under Soviet protection.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Without WWII the entire world is utterly different, trying to game it out is basically pointless and impossible.

Just as one example, without WWII the British Empire likely remains intact
. That alone utterly changes global politics for the next fifty years.

....

Basically, too many unknowns to give anything like an accurate answer.

On this point I would have to disagree. If India is still under direct British rule by 1950, or possibly 1960 at the latest its an Algeria but upped between one and two orders of magnitude. I can't see Britain having either the material or willpower to maintain control for long and once it goes an exhausted Britain is likely to plan for a lot more to follow as most of the empire is deeply costly simply to rule.

They would probably try and maintain influence in a few areas of economic or strategic significance, most likely Egypt, the Persian Gulf and the Malaya region but that's going to be indirect power at best.

I would expect the other European empires are going to follow a similar path. It might be the 80's or 90's before a lot of the regions gain formal independence but its going to happen.

Ironically, provided it can avoid some insanity the best positioned power in Europe would be Germany. No colonial burden, a strong economy and larger population and land resources without WWII's slaughter and being in one of the wealthiest regions in the world with plenty of trading partners. The only issue might be if the Soviets go for war against Europe at some time but unless their lucky I can see them getting that far without serious problems.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
On this point I would have to disagree. If India is still under direct British rule by 1950, or possibly 1960 at the latest its an Algeria but upped between one and two orders of magnitude. I can't see Britain having either the material or willpower to maintain control for long and once it goes an exhausted Britain is likely to plan for a lot more to follow as most of the empire is deeply costly simply to rule.

They would probably try and maintain influence in a few areas of economic or strategic significance, most likely Egypt, the Persian Gulf and the Malaya region but that's going to be indirect power at best.

I would expect the other European empires are going to follow a similar path. It might be the 80's or 90's before a lot of the regions gain formal independence but its going to happen.

Ironically, provided it can avoid some insanity the best positioned power in Europe would be Germany. No colonial burden, a strong economy and larger population and land resources without WWII's slaughter and being in one of the wealthiest regions in the world with plenty of trading partners. The only issue might be if the Soviets go for war against Europe at some time but unless their lucky I can see them getting that far without serious problems.

So we still see a partition of India if India's independence is delayed until later and specifically until after Jinnah's death?

Also, speaking of British India, this thread of mine might interest you, Steve:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top