How to contain a transcontinental empire? [closed]

Question

In other words, what would it take to successfully ensure that an empire whose territories stretch across a Europe sized peninsula, with colonies in transoceanic islands and in some coastal regions of the main continent, is indefinitely contained?

There was a major war, and the empire in question came really close to conquering the entire world. Only the intervention of the world's major superpower, and all other smaller states forming an alliance under said Superpower's hegemony, managed to stop and then reverse that expansion.

In the end, they were successfully driven back on all fronts. The allies offered peace, but the Emperor refused. An invasion was unfeasible, so they just decided to contain the empire. Embargoes were set up, borders were militarized, and the main Superpower decided to front the costs of containing the empire indefinitely. Or at least until they promised to be nice.

But how can such a massive enterprise be pursued? What are the logistics and strategies employed in covering such a massive region? Has it ever been done before?

Tech level of most of the armies is around 1940s level. The main Superpower has jet aircraft and nuclear missiles, while the Empire has WW2 US levels of technology. All other armies can be assumed to have capabilities ranging from WW2 Japan to Nazi Germany.

Their numbers can be whatever is necessary, because I haven't fixed population levels yet.

Answer 1

The cold war is a popular example of this.

There are several tactics both sides used to try to contain the other.

1. Exploit racial tensions. The USA, notably, had a major issue where it was fairly abusive to people with dark skin. The USSR often sent propaganda out to places to note how terrible the USA was and encouraged race riots. The more divided an empire is, the less able they are to send armies out externally.

2. Exploit religious tensions. The USA did this to the USSR. The USSR had a major issue where it was fairly abusive to religious people. The USA often sent propaganda out to say how terrible the USSR was and encouraged religious resistance.

3. Funnel weapons, trainers, and supplies to anyone who resists or rebels against them. It's very expensive to move a big army around. It's much cheaper to fund rebels. This makes it harder for them to conquer regions, disrupts supply chains, and reduces production.

4. Infiltrate the enemy nation. You need lots of spies among them to gather secrets and disrupt the enemy's politics. The Communist Party of America assisted Russia in infiltrating academia, Hollywood, academia and such, as detected by the Venona Paper program. Spies help a lot.

5. Have fleets patrol key areas. You can't unless you have open war stop them moving, but your fleets can patrol and check for ships fleeing embargos.

6. Forts along major areas of tension. Walls are extremely expensive, but you can at least make it much harder for a large army to cross. If the enemy bypasses your forts you can fire at them from behind and cut off their supply line, and retreat from them back to the fort if they counter attack.

With this you can minimize their movement and prevent them from advancing scientifically and economically as quickly as you do.

Answer 2

I know others are saying it can be done, but in reality, it can't

If the nation in restraint has the resources to stabilize and then grow, then the resources needed to continually restrain that nation always increase. Eventually the economic drain on the "allies" causes them to collapse, setting the empire free.

The problem with the examples in favor of the idea is that not a single one of them has withstood the test of time. They all failed — or they all succeeded, it depends on your point of view.¹

The total collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 took many in the West by surprise. The fundamental factors that contributed to collapse, including economic stagnation and the overextension of the military, were rooted in Soviet policies, but the Cold War and the U.S. policy of containment played a role as well. (Source)

[The Roman Empire's] demise can be attributed to many factors, especially internal corruption, division, and outside invasion. As Rome grew in size and population, the rulers of Rome became very corrupt. Rather than serving the interests of the Empire, rulers, generals, and politicians became more concerned with protecting themselves. (Source)²

The decline of the Mongol Empire was largely due to the halt of their expansionism, infighting, assimilation, and the Black Death, among other factors. The Mongol Empire began splitting almost immediately after Genghis Khan's death. (Source)

Many different factors [led to the Spanish Empire's collapse], including the decentralized political nature of Spain, inefficient taxation, a succession of weak kings, power struggles in the Spanish court and a tendency to focus on the American colonies instead of Spain's domestic economy, all contributed to the decline of the Habsburg rule of Spain. (Source)

Granted, few of those examples are that of a restrained nation... but nations and empires all fail for the same reasons, restrained or not. In fact, restraint in the context you've provided is really just a complicated embargo, not unlike the U.S. embargo of Cuba.

Now, you don't tell us how long this particular zugzwang is required to last, so I must conclude that it's going to last until something about the evil empire causes it to collapse.

Which means your question cannot be definitively answered

The examples I've given you all explain what caused the collapse of four major nations throughout history. If your goal is to keep that détente going indefinitely, then you need to address both the internal and external reasons for collapse. If your goal is simply to hold the proverbial fort until the collapse occurs (history has shown it eventually will), then you need only look at what nations of similar sizes did to hold everything at status quo. As I mentioned above, that often means embargoes to restrain economic growth so the evil empire can't invest in its military.

But I'm pretty sure history demonstrates that such actions really piss people off. One of the causes of World War II was Germany's unhappiness over the restraints imposed upon her by the winning World War I nations. Beware charismatic leaders at such times, they tend to throw wrenches into the best laid plans.

---

_{¹ If your goal is to maintain the status quo, then the effort fails when either of the two nations collapses. If your goal is to hold the fort until the evil empire collapses, then the collapse represents a success. My wording is intended to reflect your goals, not the outcome of the conflict.}

_{² Missing from this summary is the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD), which kept one power from simply kicking the other power's butt. However, MAD was not a contributing factor to the collapse of all the world's evil empires. E.G., the Mongol Empire.}

Answer 3

It was done before. The name of Charles V of Spain comes to mind who had to fight against almost all other European nations when he tried to reign on France while already having an empire "over which the sun never sets".

In more recent times it was done against either sides of the iron curtain, when they faced a stop to their influence extension plans (modern empires do not always materially rule their provinces, preferring to exert a strong influence).

Answer 4

Oil Embargo

One of the main methods by which superpower and its coalition might try to restrict this nation is by stopping the flow of vital resources. Prior to WWII, the US tried to restrict oil to Japan. This was not successful, as the Japanese secured their own new sources of oil before their stockpiles ran out.

However, this empire has been at a war, and it's likely that their supplies of strategic resources have been depleted. If they can't get enough oil to power their war machine for very long, they can't fight for very long. This also changes the defensive calculus, as it means the coalition must focus their defenses on areas where oil can be obtained.