• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Certainly, America has a huge lead over everyone else. Given that Bohr had greater success with Roosevelt in this timeline, the U.S. might even decide to share its secrets...

Now that would be one of the biggest mistakes the US could make I think. So long as there's one person or government willing to use Nuclear weapons, they will always be dangerous. The less states that have nuke capability, the better.

I agree with the idea of free democratic elections. Or at the very least 'caretaker' governments akin to the British model. With the Syndicalists marginalised and radicalised, it'd be easy for radical nationalism to take its place as an extreme reaction to problems. The US needs to create stable, economically successful democratic states to show the peoples of Europe that there is a third way that doesn't involved rhetoric, secret police, and political violence.

As for Germany, I like the idea of it being democratic with something like pre-Great War borders. There are still plenty of Germans living in the Polish areas, and the Poles can't say boo if the Americans threaten with their big stick.
 
Viden: Talt's more right than he realizes. Wrangel never took power after Kerensky's assassination. A coalition of Social Democrats and old Mensheviks headed by Viktor Chernov took power under a liberal regime until Chernov was overthrown by a Menshevik power-play in October '42. Currently, Wrangel's sitting in his headquarters on the Amur River.

Ok, I confused some AARs. :eek:o

How about just keeping Europe :p

Just kidding (or am I *shifty eyes*), but I agree with Eams, go with free and democratic elections in all occupied nations.

And what if syndies win the elections? :D
 
And what if syndies win the elections? :D

After the curb-stomping they just received in the war, I don't think anyone will vote for them :p
 
Zhuge Liang: As far as the 'stab in the back,' consider that the Jacobins and, to a lesser extent, the Sorelians were the ones who overthrew the French government, the French government that had, until that point, conquered nearly all of Europe.

That's a good point and should help the post-war situation in Europe seeing as the Jacobins and Sorelians had the chance to put their ideas into practise and failed completely. Of course this could lead to mainstream Syndicalism continuing to be a credible force, at least in France, Spain and Italy- I doubt the Germans and other conquered nations were enthusiastic syndicalists in the first place and they certainly won't be now. It would be interesting to see Syndicalism becoming a more moderate, social-democratic ideology shorn of the radical elements and particularly interesting to see the American response.

I agree with the idea of sticking mostly to the pre-war borders and possibly holding plebicites in the most disputed areas, particularly in the case of Germany- you don't want to follow the French example and set up weak states that are obviously puppets to punish the losers.
 
That's a good point and should help the post-war situation in Europe seeing as the Jacobins and Sorelians had the chance to put their ideas into practise and failed completely. Of course this could lead to mainstream Syndicalism continuing to be a credible force, at least in France, Spain and Italy- I doubt the Germans and other conquered nations were enthusiastic syndicalists in the first place and they certainly won't be now. It would be interesting to see Syndicalism becoming a more moderate, social-democratic ideology shorn of the radical elements and particularly interesting to see the American response.

I agree with the idea of sticking mostly to the pre-war borders and possibly holding plebicites in the most disputed areas, particularly in the case of Germany- you don't want to follow the French example and set up weak states that are obviously puppets to punish the losers.


You mean like Social Democracy IOTL? At least in Germany the formal split only happened during and after WW1.
 
You mean like Social Democracy IOTL? At least in Germany the formal split only happened during and after WW1.

That's the idea I had in mind, although forming some sort of social democratic ideology is going to be much harder in this TL because of the dominance of orthodox Syndicalism and the extremists, which didn't really leave any room for dissent or differing ideolofy. Syndicalism's going to have to make this transition now though if it wants to survive as anything other than a fringe underground movement.
 
Yes, the United States of Europe, it being an artificial state imposed on people with no sense of unity and with weak democratic traditions, is bound to either push ethnic violence to exciting new levels which will result in there being a few million less Europeans around to be told about how great America is, or in the transformation to a more authoritarian society which will resent the US and use its combined and expansive industrial might to isolate the US to a degree that will be worse even than that of its pre-war years, until the difference is such that the Eastern seaboard can be invaded and the Lincoln Memorial be molested by Franco-German storm-troopers before it's blown into tiny little pieces and is mixed in with the rubble of the White House and the light of democracy is finally extinguished forever and the American people is left to suffer under the tyranny of the PSA (Pot-smokers Of America).

Or, the US can set up separate European states and promote democratic institutions, free and fair elections and use more subtle means to advance the gradual economic and political integration of the European nations into a single state, which could be done in as little as fifty years (though the Norwegians and the Swiss will still not want to be a part of it), while never being too open about that being what it wants. Because a united European state is only going to work if it's the result of a broad European effort to make it happen.
That, and executing any and all dumb schmucks who wishes to cross the Atlantic to tell the Europeans that "Uh, we like totally saved you, so now you're going to do exactly what we tell you to do, mmkay?"

You got some great options there, Eams.

Now that would be one of the biggest mistakes the US could make I think. So long as there's one person or government willing to use Nuclear weapons, they will always be dangerous. The less states that have nuke capability, the better.

I agree. I don't think it is a good idea to be handing out nuclear secrets to anybody. If they want it, let them work for it.

Appoint some silly puppet dictators all over Europe, and have all of them lick Truman's boots.

I don't think Truman wears boots.
 
Last edited:
Prophets of a New Order - Part IV

President Truman's words were a fitting eulogy to the conflict that had finally come to a close. The destruction and ruin facing so many nations in the fall of 1946 was not the product of a single conflict, but a series of wars. Scholars have debated ever since about the proper title of the conflict, with the Second Great War and the World War gaining early and wide circulation, as well as just what wars could be included. Most commonly dated at starting on January 7, 1940 with the French declaration of war on Germany and ending with the general surrender to the United States in October, 1946, some historians have seen fit to include other, lesser wars like the Romanian Wars, the Indian War of Unification, and even the Second American Civil War in this 'World War.'

But regardless of such details, no one can disagree that it was the most bloody and destructive war ever witnessed in human history. Europe itself lay in ruins, more so even than at the end of the Great War; at the time, many wondered if the continent could ever rise up out of the ashes and return to some semblance of prosperity after so much had been lost. Although civilians had largely been spared the brunt of war, those unlucky to be caught in the cross-fire or victims of atrocities was unavoidable and inevitable. The advancements in technology allowed the opposing sides to avoid a repetition of the grueling attrition warfare of the past, but new ways were simply invented to facilitate the killing, and men were all too willing to throw their lives away in heroic acts of self-sacrifice for any number of causes. For the United States, the war proved just as costly as the civil war that had preceded it: a quarter million soldiers had lost their lives in combat, with easily another three-quarter million wounded or maimed.

With the terrible cost of war fully in mind, President Truman intended to make the most of the opportunity now presented to his administration. The United States had emerged from two decades of self-imposed diplomatic isolation and economic depression as the pre-eminent power in the world militarily, economically, and technologically. The great empires of the old European order lay shattered on the battlefield, and statesmen and generals trembled at the thought of American jet planes roaring overhead as great masses of armored and mechanized formations rumbled through the countryside; American battleships and aircraft carriers plied the sea lanes, while submarines lurked beneath; and deep within heavily-guarded facilities in Idaho and New Mexico, work continued on the production of atomic bombs.

What the President envisioned as the nations of the Syndicalist coalition capitulated one after another was not simply just a peace treaty with the defeated nations with a few minor territorial adjustments to set the stage for the next European conflict. Rather, Truman believed that, given the proper care and attention, the United States could impose a general settlement on Europe and augur in a new era of peace on the basis of democratic governance, free trade, and self-determination. Truman repeatedly emphasized to the American people that the United States had an opportunity that they could not allow to pass them by to reshape the world in the weeks following the end of hostilities; but the President refused to specify just what he intended to do because, in truth, this humble Missouri farmer, turned Senator, turned President, who had never left the country or spoken a foreign language, had little idea how he could go about doing his task.

Just as he had done immediately after Roosevelt's death, Truman leaned heavily on his advisors for assistance and guidance. Though James Byrnes remained Secretary of State, Truman had already persuaded General Marshall to delay his retirement from public life and replace Byrnes in the near-future. Besides the venerable general, Truman hoped to gain quick Congressional approval for any treaties resulting from the peace deliberations by consulting high-placed Senators from both political parties, particularly Tom Conally, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Arthur Vandenburg, the Republicans' self-styled foreign relations expert. In the following weeks, Truman also began inviting State Department experts, ambassadors past and present, and influential citizens such as Eleanor Roosevelt or Henry Wallace to the White House for private discussions. Just as he was forced to rapidly adapt to the responsibilities of a wartime president after the death of Roosevelt, so too was Truman now thrown into a crash course on geopolitics and world history. In fairness to the President, no leader in history had ever had quite such a task presented to him. The last to attempt it was Wilhelm II and Chancellor Tirpitz; it was understandably not a model the American president wished to imitate.

Many historians have placed great emphasis on the fact that the war ended less than a month before the 1946 Congressional midterm elections, employing the results of the political season as a barometer for American public opinion of the outcome of American foreign policy in the crucial months ahead. Much to the President's relief, the schism within the Democratic Party appeared to be healing; with American having achieved an overwhelming victory over the Syndicalists, the traditional Wallace peace plan, and with it the main point of contention amongst Democrats, lay in ruins. Having successfully ended the war and the economy still running strong, Truman had high hopes for November 2. In contrast, the Republicans were placed in an unenviable campaign position, forced into the role of prophets; with little else to run a campaign on, many Republicans argued that their party was crucial to act as a counter-weight to any Presidential delusions of grandeur. Indeed, it must be remembered that the United States was only drawn into war by the British attack on the Atlantic Fleet and the subsequent French declaration of war.

It can be argued that Truman blundered when the President announced on October 30 that he would be inviting not just delegations from the defeated Syndicalist powers, the Entente nations, and Germany and her allies to Washington D.C. for peace negotiations, but any 'formal and legitimate representatives from all nations so disposed.' Though the invitation appears aimed chiefly at Japan, Shangqing China, and Russia, Truman was, in effect, opening the doors to every government recognized by the United States. To most Americans, the President appeared to be preparing to remake the entire world; with the left and right wings of the Democratic Party firmly united once again, it was clear that the only significant force both willing and able to defy the President should it be necessary was the Republican Party. The results of the election three days later bore testament to this fact: despite a strong economy and winning the war, the Democrats lost two dozen crucial Congressional seats to their Republican rivals. The setback was not enough to deprive the Democrats of a majority, but the voters had nevertheless delivered a sobering message to the President on the eve of the conference about to begin in Washington D.C. that they would not accept a peace that would jeopardize American interests and principles so the President could play the role of the world's savior.

As the leaders and representatives of all the great nations of the world began to gather in Washington D.C. for the peace conference, no one knew for certain how matters within the country might develop. Would they once more reject the outside world and turn inward, or would the American people take up the mantle thrust upon them by fate?

 
I hope Truman doesn't end up overextending himself with his proposed peace conference. He's essentially free to do as he wishes in Europe so he can avoid the situation Wilson was forced into at Versailles, but I have a feeling the countries such as Russia and Japan may resent what they see as US pretentions to global dominance.
 
Lets hope negotiations do not break down, that could lead to a war with Russia, Japan, or Shangqing China or all three at once.
 
Zhuge Liang: While he doesn't have to really contend with allied powers at the negotiating table, he still has to bring back a treaty 2/3 of the Senate will approve.

Nathan Madien: I really wish I had gotten the oppurtunity to read it before I got this far along in my AAR.

History_Buff: Now that would be unexpected!

Enewald/Van5: Just wait. ;)

-----​

Prophets of a New Order - Part V

Though the United States, having secured a complete victory over the forces of the Syndicalist Coalition and occupying most of the European continent by military means, was undoubtedly in an ascendant, even preeminent position as the delegates began to arrive in Washington D.C. for President Truman's ambitious congress and peace negotiation, this historic event was by no means to be completely monopolized by the United States. Each sovereign state that deigned to sent representatives to Washington in the waning days of 1946 was determined to uphold its national interests, interests that were very often at odds with the American vision of the world the President was now beginning to mold. But of the dozens of countries that were to participate, four would emerge as the most powerful foreign influences on Truman's plan: Shangqing China, Japan, Russia, and Canada.

In spite of the innumerable obstacles facing the victorious Shangqing Tianquo in its plan to reform and restructure the Chinese nation in the wake of the defeat of the Qing dynasty, the Shangqing were amongst the first to accept the American invitation to Washington. Surprisingly, it was soon discovered that the Chinese delegation would be headed by none other than Sun Suzhen, wife of Zhang Tianran and ostensibly Chairwoman of the Pan-Chinese Congress established soon after the fall of Nanking. Arguably even more enigmatic than the quasi-mystic Zhang, Sun Suzhen caused a stir in the American media as she slowly traveled from San Francisco to Washington by train, all but proselytizing as she went. At her side was Lin Bojiu, the stern 'Minister of Prosperity' and Zhang's chief economic advisor. It was clear from the start that the Shangqing aimed for a full return of lands 'stolen' from China by the 'imperialist' powers over the course of the last century. But it remained unknown whether the unpredictable Shangqing regime would accept less than a complete return of all lands claimed by China. With hard facts difficult to come by, rumors abound, ranging from an impending Chinese invasion of Manchuria and mobs of nationalist Chinese taking to the streets demanding an end to an era of colonialism, to signs of economic and military exhaustion.

Not long after it was made public that the Shangqing would be dispatching such high-ranking delegates to Washington, the Empire of Japan announced it too would send a representative in the form of Foreign Minister Nagata Tetsuzan, undoubtedly in the hopes of frustrate any attempt by the Shangqing to garner international support or sympathy. Besides Germany, Japan had the most to lose from a unified, modern, and violently anti-imperialist China. Indeed, establishing Manchuria and the so-called 'Trans-Amur Republic' centered on Vladivostok was Japanese protectorates had been critical in staving off the sort of economic calamity that befell the United States and Germany. For decades, control of both Korea and Manchuria was deemed by the government as a vital strategic necessity; if anything, the ascension of Emperor Hirohito to the throne following the death of the sickly Taisho Emperor had further cemented this imperialist policy in Japan. Thus, Japan and China were faced with two mutually exclusive policies, and both countries seemed prepared to wage all-out war to that end.

Washington_Treaty_1.jpg

Tensions in the Far East, centered over Manchuria and Transamur, threatened to spark war between at least three world powers.

To a lesser extent, Russia was also in conflict with Japan over the latter's colonial holdings. But since the rise of Nikolai Bukharin to power, Russia's energy in foreign affairs was directed primarily to Europe and the West. Though Russia had, perhaps wisely, elected to stay out of any direct engagement with either Germany or the United States, it had exploited the chaos of war to snatch up large swathes of territory in Eastern Europe, land that, until the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, had been part of the Russian Empire. Like the Shangqing, the Russians sent a high-ranking representative, no less than Prime Minister Irakli Tsereteli and Nikolai Sukhanov, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee within the Syndicalist Party. Tsereteli, leader of the Russian Social Democrats, was indicative of the compromises Bukharin had been forced to make in order to seize power from the hapless Viktor Chernov in 1942. But by sending Tsereteli to Washington, Bukharin was set to make significant gains. The coalition of Social Democrats and Bukharin's Syndicalists was by no means ideal, and with the pace of industrialization slowing ever since '45, tension had been building toward a political showdown. Should the mission to America go poorly, Bukharin could heap the blame on the Prime Minister, while the presence of Sukhanov, who had become a masterful manipulator of public opinion in Russia, ensured that Bukharin could still reap benefits from any diplomatic successes that might stem from negotiations.

It is with no small amount of irony that, of all the major powers that elected to participate in Truman's congress, Canada stood most at odds with the United States in November 1946. Ever since the end of the civil war, President Roosevelt, and Truman after him, had done virtually everything short of war to snub the Canadian government of Edward VIII, epitomized by the crowning of Queen Elizabeth II, Edward's niece, in London at the head of an occupation government hand-picked by the United States. Though Edward's return to Britain would undoubtedly be catastrophic and met with violent resistance from the British people, the King refused to renounce his rights to the throne. The deadlock within the House of Windsor had serious political repercussions within Canada, as Prime Minister Mackenzie King's Conservative government faced mounting opposition from a citizenry sick of war and, more ominously, sick of propping up the British émigré class. Running out of options, King chose to gamble it all on Truman's peace convention and planned to travel to Washington in person in the hopes he might work some miracle.

Hardly a master of foreign affairs, President Truman was certainly not keenly aware of all these various nuances. But having thrown himself fully into the effort of preparing himself, the President was by no means expecting the world to accept his dictates from on high, nor was he oblivious to the problems these foreign politicians faced at home.

Likewise, the country was suddenly getting an abrupt introduction to the outside world that they as voters had shunned in the previous two decades. Besides the baffling Sun Suzhen, the deposed royalty of Europe began to trickle into the country and mingle with the populace. The Infante Juan, Count of Barcelona arrived on November 6 in the hopes of restoring the monarchy in Spain, as did the Austrian Emperor Otto and, with evident futility, the exiled Qing Emperor Pu Yi. But by far it was the arrival of Pope Julius IV on November 11 that drew Americans' attention; crowds of faithful Catholics cheerfully welcomed the exiled pontiff in Boston and then New York City, despite the heavy Syndicalist sympathies in both cities. Even the mentally unstable Baron von Sternberg of Mongolia attempted to charter a plane to the conference in Washington, only to have an abrupt change of heart and return home, citing his suspicion that the President was simply luring him into a trap. Others, such as the Brazilian delegation headed by Luis Carlos Prestes, arrived with no coherent agenda in mind, whereas the La Platan representatives explained they would be present to curtail any 'Brazilian mischief.'

As the kings, princes, generals, ministers, priests, and union bosses slowly gathered in Washington in anticipation for the start of the humbly-named Washington Peace Conference, one could only guess how the interplay of such a bewildering mixture of countries, ideologies, and personalities would affect the outcome.

 
Bukharin in Russia? A spot of light in this dark times.
 
Very few of these countries have any common ground whatsoever, I can't see much happening during this conference besides weeks of bickering followed by an acrimonous break-up.

At least none of the countries invited represent a major threat to US interests or desire a major war with it at this point so the tidying up of Europe and other US affaris should go smoothly compared to the rest of the conference.
 
Truman better be a master diplomat, or I think he is going to have a world class mess on his hand. I can forsee a war between Japan and China, a potential war between the United States and Canada, and who knows what Russia might do. The world might be about to go mad again.

On a side note, I think it would not be a bad idea to put the Pope back in power in Italy. IT is overwhelmingly Catholic and I am not altogether convinced they would not welcome it. You could roleplay Truman having a referendum on the issue in Italy and put the vote to us or just put him back in power if you really wanted to. As for the rest of the crowned heads, they should not get anything. I doubt anyone in Spain would be to welcoming of new King for example.
 
Last edited:
By the way, what are you doing about security? With so many VIPs in one place, I would imagine Truman wouldn't want to take any chances with their safety.

Nathan Madien: I really wish I had gotten the oppurtunity to read it before I got this far along in my AAR.

I have read "Truman", and you have portrayed him with dead-on accuracy.