Possible Superpowers of the 20th century

What I find strange about this whole thread is that one could successfully argue that any nation that meets all or most of the criteria discussed could have become a superpower in the 20th century given the right circumstances.

People throwing ASB stones at one another for suggesting that the UK, Japan, Brazil etc 'could have' been superpowers is a bit unfair to what the title of this thread is.

Also, the differentiation of superpower vs great power is a bit meaningless in this context because its viewed through the tainted glasses of our current point in history. What we're suggesting is that because of some POD a 'great power' graduates into a superpower much like the USA did between the world wars.

If you'd asked a person on the street in 1914 who the superpowers were (after you explained what superpowers meant because the phrase hadn't been coined yet) they would have picked the UK and maybe France, Germany and Russia.

Asked the same question in 1944 and the USA, UK and the USSR would have been mentioned.

Asked again in 1950 and you'd have got the USSR and the USA - the UK was broke and it's empire fragmenting.

Asked again in 1995 (and the press was asking it a lot) and only the USA appeared to be the remaining superpower.

I think that the list already collated by various posters is right and it tends to concur with that academics agree upon as well.

Brazil, UK, EU, China, India, USA, USSR (or Russia), Japan, Germany and France are all good choices for potential pods of becoming a superpower at some point in the 20th century (given the right pod)
 
France - This would depend on two PODs. First, the Viet Minh must be defeated in Indochina by any means nessecery, whether that may be American intervention, luck, etc. Second, French Algerians are more accepting of proposals allowing the integration of native muslims into society as citizens; this would for the most part prevent the costly Algerian War. As a result, the French Union is able to continue for some time, with de-colonization occuring in the 80's rather than the 60's (much to the benefit of the former colonies, who recieve investments from France), with Algeria remaining with France to the present day (due to a large French minority making up 24%) and liberalization of domestic policy. Economic growth would increase rather than decrease, allowing it to maintain economic parity with Germany (this comes with strong economic ties to its colonies, the European Community, and the development of Algeria). France would be the political leader of the European Union, and the European Armed Forces.

Iraq - Single POD; victory in the Iran-Iraq war. If they had succeeded in capturing the province of Khuzestan, they would have had enough money to modernize their military, continue economic development, finish their nuclear program, begin their manned space program, etc. Adding Kuwait to that list allows them almost complete control over OPEC, with Saudi Arabia being the major rival; even then, the large Iraqi military "might" make them bend to Hussein's will. With that money, he could now also make a navy that could project his armed forces elsewhere, but there really would be not need for it other than to protect the Persian Gulf from either Iran or Iraq from the United States. A Fourth Arab-Israeli War would not be too far away at this point I would imagine.
 

Ice-Titan

Banned
Russia had massive emigration in the later 1800s.

So? Russia also had massive economic and demographic growth during the later 1800s.

Russia won't magically industrialise if there's no ww1.

Russia was already rapidly industrializing before WWI.

Russia barring the landed aristocracy being forced from power, something which will not happen easily. In other countries it took a revolution or a civil war for this to happen.

That is fine; if it is not communism. I am not aruging for Monarchy but for Capitalism.
 
Top