Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Curzon Curtain by YNot1989 Curzon Curtain by YNot1989
February 1st, 1945: President Roosevelt is informed of the successful detonation of the Trinity Nuclear Device, talks with the Soviets immediately shift from ceding Eastern Europe in exchange for an invasion of Japan, to allowing the Soviets to administer their Pre-Barbados claims over the Eastern half of Poland.

March 3rd, 1945: President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill meet with Chariman Chiang_Kai-shek, and Mao Zedong leader of the Chinese Liberation Army, in Rangoon. In exchange for arms and political reforms by the Chinese government, Mao agrees to work with the allies in Asia to drive the Japanese out of Manchuria.

March 12th, 1945: President Roosevelt gives the order to drop the atomic bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. WWII ends with Japan's unconditional surrender.

March 20th, 1945: Winston Churchill visits the United States to meet with President Roosevelt for what will be the last time. The two discuss the proposed decolonization protocols of the new United Nations. Churchill informs Roosevelt that he intends to create a Kurdish state to act as a buffer against the Soviets in the Caucasus.

April 3rd, 1945: President Roosevelt, sends his proposed Second Bill of Rights to the US Congress. China officially ratifies its new constitution, creating greater representation for the Chinese people and popular elections for a President.

April 12th, 1945: President Roosevelt dies, he is succeeded by Vice President Henry A. Wallace. The allies of WWII hold multiple morning ceremonies.

January 1946: The UN passes the decolonization acts, Indochina is the first nation to be granted independence from France.

This was originally from an Alternate Timeline I wrote called Engine of Progress, but I've always enjoyed the general idea of a Cold War where Yalta didn't condemn half of Europe to the Soviets.

BTW: This is an alternate map of the world in 1980.
Add a Comment:
 
:icontheelevateddeviant:
TheElevatedDeviant Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2012
I see Tudeh has taken over Iran.
Reply
:iconsahwar:
sahwar Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
Intriguing, but why are Bulgaria and other Eastern-European countries always thrown up with the Soviets (even in alternative history scenarios!)? I see a major pro-Western bias here...

Still, well done, it's indeed an alternative history setting that is quite creative.
Reply
:iconynot1989:
YNot1989 Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Once again you're countries are in a geographically strategic region for the Russians, and this is the best case scenario, in my opinion, for what the western allies could have gotten out of the Soviets at Yalta if the US had the atomic bomb by then.
Reply
:iconhillfighter:
Hillfighter Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2010
There's a lot more here than just a Curzon line change

I see 2 Pakistans, Iraq is also split, there's a Kurdistan, Tibet is communist, the Philippines are part of NATO, Iran is communist which implies that the soviets now have a warm water port, somehow China Korea and Japan seem to be working together and none of them are communist, Cuba is NATO and no latin american insurrections have occurred, Vietnam isn't communist and isn't even Vietnam it's Indochina!

I like your map, but at first glance it looks like NATO has it too easy. I mean, in real life the US had enormous economic and technological advantages over the Soviets and still had a tough as nails fight in Vietnam.

So, I'm going to assume that the Soviets have an Indian Ocean Navy and that NATO forces are fighting very had battles all across Africa.
Reply
:iconynot1989:
YNot1989 Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Nothing's more dangerous than an animal backed into a corner. ;)

As for Two Pakistans, thats actually Pashtunistan and Pakistan. I'll edit the explanation to be a little more in depth.
Reply
:iconk-haderach:
K-Haderach Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2010
Also, come to think of it, would the Western Allies really allow Germany to keep its pre-war borders, even if they controlled all of it? After all, Germany lost territory after WW1, too. Maybe Poland should get East Prussia...? And Silesia could be split between Poland and the Czech Republic.
Reply
:iconk-haderach:
K-Haderach Featured By Owner Aug 31, 2010
Hmmm, the trouble is, this would make for a very boring Cold War, because the US is so powerful that the Soviets have no hope of winning.

Also, why is the western border of the USSR unchanged from the pre-WW2 years?
Reply
:iconynot1989:
YNot1989 Featured By Owner Aug 31, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Read up on the Yalta conference and the political dickering that went on between the western allies and the soviets, the border should make more sense then.

As for a boring cold war... shouldn't that be a good thing?
Reply
:iconk-haderach:
K-Haderach Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2010
Ok, if the Western Allies were in a stronger position, I can understand them demanding (and getting) independence for the Baltic states. But why is there a separate state of Eastern Poland? That part of interwar Poland never really had a majority Polish population in the first place - it was majority-Belarussian territory conquered by Poland in their war with the young Soviet Republic. It would be extremely odd to have a state of Eastern Poland where most people are not Polish.

It's also unlikely that Romania would get to keep Bessarabia, because it was a staunch Nazi ally for most of the war, and I can't imagine the Western Allies negotiating with the Soviets on Romania's behalf after the war.

Regarding the "boring cold war" thing... well, you see, I wish the Soviets had won. :)
Reply
:iconynot1989:
YNot1989 Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Ok, no offense but your talking about fairness and geopolitics, two things that simply do not mix. That's like saying the Allies would never have let the Russians give half of Prussia to Poland because it was majority German. This is about interest, and the fact is that the lines on the map say interwar Poland was there, and if the Allies had their way it would still be their short of a civil war.

As for the "I wish the Soviets had won" thing... Are you insane?
Reply
:iconk-haderach:
K-Haderach Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2010
No, no, I'm not talking about fairness, I'm just talking about the respective interests of the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. I'm not saying that Eastern Poland is "unfair", I'm just saying that I don't see why the Soviets would create such a state instead of simply annexing the respective territory - and I don't see why the Western Allies would have any say in the matter. I mean, the Soviets could just hold a referendum in Eastern Poland asking the people there if they wanted to join the USSR, and the result would probably be "yes" without any need for vote-rigging. It's not the same thing as with East Germany, where the people were actually German and wanted a German state.

As for Romania and Bessarabia, I don't see why the Western Allies would pressure the USSR to respect the pre-war borders of a major Axis nation. It's all about interests, not fairness.

I wish the Soviets had won because I'm from Eastern Europe and it's clear to me that we would have been far better off if we had won the Cold War. I also think Latin America, much of Asia and possibly even Africa would have been better off after a Soviet victory.
Reply
:iconynot1989:
YNot1989 Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Look, if the US had detonated the Trinity device by Yalta, Roosevelt would have never had to hand all of Eastern Europe over to the Soviets as a concession for them to declare war on Japan, because Operation downfall would simply be off the table and the massive Red Army would no longer be needed for an invasion of Japan. With this in mind Roosevelt would have had the biggest stick in written history to wave in the Soviet's face, the threat of a nuclear war against them if they didn't back out of Eastern Europe. The Curzon Line would likely be drawn as a minor concession to the Soviets to keep them from actually provoking such a war, but with the tables turned in the allies favor, they couldn't annex it outright. A Belorussian led puppet government would have been installed, and the Eastern Polish state would, much like East Germany, exist sovereign from the Soviet Union in name only.

As for your country's present circumstances... I doubt you'd be arguing with we over cold war history over the internet if the Soviets would have won. Our modern conveniences exist because of the Western Free Markets, and social liberalism. The best thing America ever did for China was show them how great open markets are for your civilization. I don't like everything about capitalism, I'm an advocate of more taxes on the rich and greater regulation over the financial sector, but the fact remains that China is the world's second largest economy with a booming standard of living because of the infusion of wealth that open markets have given them.
Reply
:iconk-haderach:
K-Haderach Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2010
Well, it's your alternate history, so you get to decide what happens in it. I just want to provide constructive criticism, because I'm also a fan of this stuff.

The Soviets got Eastern Europe as part of their sphere of influence not only as a concession to get them to declare war on Japan, but also because it was clear in 1944 that the Red Army would be the one to liberate Eastern Europe. Ultimately, the border between East and West was set more-or-less at the line where the two sides met in WW2 (with some adjustments in Germany and Austria). If the Soviets only advanced to the Curzon Line in this alternate universe, they would probably accept that as the limit of their sphere of influence. But if they conquered Berlin and reached the Elbe and then Roosevelt said "withdraw to the Curzon Line or I'll nuke you", I am 100% certain that Stalin would have told him to shove it and declared war.

Plus, the West would get extremely bad PR. Betraying an ally, especially a very popular one like the USSR was in Europe at the time, makes people hate you. If you betray an ally and then also drop nukes on their cities, you can expect rebellion at home. The French and Italian communists would have started revolutions. Then fascists and nazis would flock to the Western cause, further making the West look bad.

(again, I'm only giving suggestions - you can always build your alternate universe in such a way as to avoid this scenario if you wish)
Reply
:iconynot1989:
YNot1989 Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well you may be right there, Stalin was THAT crazy, though it would be an unpopular war for the whole of ten minutes that it would take for the US Government to brand it as the "Red Betrayal," followed by a B-29 dropping a bomb on Leningrad and Moscow the next day.

However your scenario sounds vaguely familiar to a new piece of alternate history called Red Inferno: 1945. I haven't read it yet myself, but you might like it.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconk-haderach:
K-Haderach Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2010
On the topic of the real-life Cold War: I'd give up the internet in exchange for undoing the disaster of the 1990s any day. Modern conveniences are not much use if you can't afford them, you know. And most people here can only afford the same kinds of conveniences they had 20 years ago. Internet connections are slowly getting cheaper and more widespread, of course, and so are cell phones, but they're still only affordable to a minority of the population. Eventually, maybe in another 10-15 years, they might become available to most people. But by then, 30-35 years will have passed since the end of the Cold War. Who knows what we could have achieved in 30-35 years if we kept our old planned economies? We were actually developing quite fast and inventing new things before 1989. We were behind the West only because you had a huge head start - you started industrializing way back in the 19th century, while Eastern Europe only really started in the 20s and 30s (and in some cases only in the 50s).

Free markets exist in Latin America and Africa, too. In fact some of those places have even freer markets than North America or Europe. So how come you don't hear about modern conveniences being invented there? Because most new inventions always happen in the most developed countries, regardless of their economic system.

The only benefit China got from its market reforms was rapid economic growth - which is great, except that Soviet-style planned economies achieved equally fast - or even faster - economic growth at other times. Before 1989, the Soviet Union was the world's second-largest economy (and Eastern Europe was behind Western Europe, North America and Japan, but ahead of everyone else).

On a different note: The USSR did not interfere in the ordinary daily affairs of my country, or any other country in Eastern Europe. They did set limits on what our governments were allowed to do, but as long as we kept within those limits, the Soviets did not interfere. America does pretty much the same thing with its own client states. All great powers do it.
Reply
:iconk-haderach:
K-Haderach Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2010
To be more exact about the whole "we would have been better off" thing: The 1990s were a time of huge suffering in Eastern Europe - it was worse than your Great Depression, most of our economies collapsed, workers lost their jobs and livelihoods, many elderly people were left without support and literally died of hunger or disease after a lifetime of work, healthcare and education collapsed in many countries, others had civil wars - and a few people got VERY rich. That's what capitalism brought us. We've recovered somewhat since 2000, but even today many countries here are poorer and far more socially unequal than in 1989. Even in the best of cases they spent 10-15 years just to get back what they lost in 1990. Crime and corruption are still rampant, and most young people want to emigrate because they don't see a future here.
Reply
:iconangelblue01:
AngelBlue01 Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2010
I find it strange that Spain isn't a NATO ally of the US?
Reply
:iconynot1989:
YNot1989 Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well Spain didn't join NATO until 1982, but it was a US ally. This is a map for 1980.
Reply
:iconpytko3:
pytko3 Featured By Owner Jun 12, 2010
I would say the only Problem with this map is that China should still be communist. I would like to see an alternate history where the Korean war didn't end in a draw and resulted in United Korea, that was a U.S. ally and was anti-communist.
Reply
:iconzalezsky:
zalezsky Featured By Owner Jun 18, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
you make a good point mate
Reply
:iconynot1989:
YNot1989 Featured By Owner Jun 18, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks
Reply
:iconzalezsky:
zalezsky Featured By Owner Jun 19, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
np
Reply
:iconynot1989:
YNot1989 Featured By Owner Jun 12, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
During WWII Mao sought US recognition, and was willing to dial down some of his positions if he could gain America's endorsement. This map suggests that the US takes advantage of that during the war to combat the Japanese.

The very basic POD is that Trinity test is conducted in time for the Yalta conference, so Roosevelt doesn't have to sell out all of eastern Europe to get the Soviets to declare war on Japan and prepare for an invasion that never happened. So the US endorses Mao, mediates a settlement with the sitting Chinese government, and gains a powerful ally.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
Download PNG 1359 × 656




Details

Submitted on
June 7, 2010
Image Size
50.3 KB
Resolution
1359×656
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
3,026 (4 today)
Favourites
22 (who?)
Comments
27
Downloads
96
×