Hello
I think ol' mate Cavey is pretty much on the money. You would end up with Russia, Japan, Nazi Europe and the USA. Realist theory would say that they then would compete for supremecy. Actually, there are multitudes of theories that kick in here, uni/bi/multipolar stability theory, balancing theory, etc. IT would really be up to a few variables though.
1. Which country could foster the greatest post war economy and convert that into military power. Now, at a guess, that would have to have been Europe and the US. Firstly, because that's what the US did after WW2 and they also would not have had the Marshall Plan taking large amounts of dollars out of the economy (one may also argue that the MArshall Plan helped build the US economy, but I'm not educated on those matters...). Also, the US has a pretty large area of exclusive influence (nth America((Canada, USA, Mexico), Central America and South America...., although of course history tells us that Sth America was not an exclusive sphere of influence for the US and neither was Central. One only has to look at the issues in Nicaragua, Chile, etc. to see the influence of Marxism/Socialism/USSR) and a large market to sell/buy to/from to strengthen it's economy.
Secondly it would have to be Europe. GB had huge industrial power and so did the Bundes Republic. Combine this with the added strong economies of Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, France, Austria etc. and you may well have the strongest economy at the time.
Russia and East Asia were pretty much basket cases at the time. Japan launched its attack on Pearl Harbour because its economy was beginning to pale against that of the US and its window of opportunity was closing, fast! China was useless and Sth Est Asia had nothing then and is only beginning to emerge as a useful block now that we have ASEAN. So, Russia and Japan definately would have been at the mercy of Europe and the US.
This begs the argument of who would pair up to balance the two sides. I would hazard a guess that maybe Russia and the US could not because of their competing economic ideologies..., which also pretty much precludes Russia from pairing up with anyone that wasn't at least socialist, really. That pretty much leaves the US and Europe to pair off because the US would not pair off with Japan just after they'd been attacked by them. This would also probably happen because this way you have the USSR contained by Europe from expansion on the Western front and by Asia/Japan on the Eastern front. The USSR thusly has three opponents with two of them physically constraining any territorial expansion.
That takes Russia out of the equation. HAving Russia pitted against the Japs means that the Japs are also contained by Russia on their Western front and also contained by the Pacific in the East. We also have to wonder whether they took Hawaii as well, that could be a significant part of the equation. Either way, Both Russia and Japan are contained on either side and Europe and the US can grow strong together.
This puts the US in a pretty good stead due to its geographic positioning. All Russia, Europe and Japan are connected by land, meaning that surprise attacks and creeping borders/territorial control and force projection are much easier, especially int he era that we are discussing. But to attack the US, one must cross either the Atlantic or the Pacific. That means that the US doesn't have to spend as much on continental defence as the other three players. US spends more on R&D, strengthening its economy, building greater force projection and being able to enforce its will in greater terms, over time on Japan. This is pretty much what we've seen after WW2 anyway. The US builds its navy and airfoce to defend itself over the oceans, not its own territory. Stop the enemy before they reach the mainland. That way, the US also builds a dual use defence force that can double as an offence force. Its navies and airforce can travel across the oceans to attack as well as defending the approaches to the mainland. that means that the US has to spend less money and creates power projection to coerce other nations and smaller regions, thusly expanding its power and influence in the world.
Thusly, the argument stands that the US would come out the eventual winner of any post WW2 power balance given your hypothetical question.
Although! There are many other variables to this equation that haven't been considered.
1. Did the US NOT make nuclear weapons and therefore in this post-WW2 scenario, the power projection capabilities of nations remain at only naval and air power?
2. Japan takes India, but how far did they make it West? Do they take Pakistan, Aghanistana nd press into the Middle East as Germany was attemtpting to do?
3. Did Germany end up taking Africa, if not, where does that continent fit into the picture.
etc. etc.
Did you honestly expect me to write any less?
