stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 16, 2024 22:09:51 GMT
I'm not sure how politically viable this would be in the dominions and possibly also to a degree in Britain itself. We had been attacked in this war and I think there would be more determination to 'teach' the attackers a lesson and secure our interests.
A lot might depend on whether conscription was maintained after the war in Europe ended. The establishment of it in March 1939 was I think the 1st time it had been in place in peace-time and it had been a bitterly contested issue in WWI, not coming into place until 1916 and even then not in Ireland. I don't know where the government would maintain it after the defeat of Germany. - Can't remember if I had asked this before.
Assuming Labour has won a lot would depend on their policies and also the size of their majority. Given how much more successful the war had been and also there is less time for Labour to establish cabinet experience I would expect a smaller majority and possibly a less radical programme.
I was thinking with war in Europe having ended during Spring 1941 and some months with various operations to secure peace - Hungary and such - a number of service personnel would have been demobilized prior to the outbreak of war in the Far East by November 1941. Hence why the low number of British troops sent to the Far East. Regarding the numbers of Dominions and India I used more or less the OTL troops mobilized up to the Japanese attack in December 1941 - hence the Middle East Strategic Reserve for a large part of Australian and New Zealand troops as well as one Canadian and for a short cameo a South African one in addition to a large Indian contingent were the troops in the Far East.
I'd guess the Aussies and Kiwi's would have been willing to defend themselves - remember the Australian PM wanting his troops home when the Japanese became more aggressive which pattern have been more or less followed here minus Japanese occupation of Northern FIC.
So basically conscription ended in Britain just a few months before the Japanese attack but still a large number would be available also to keep the lid on Germany just recently defeated and occupied - at least to my understanding and with an unpredictable Uncle Joe in Moscow.
I would have no problem in editing the elections though I thought of the Far East War as something Europeans would have little real interest in though of course British and French as well as Netherlands governments would though the shorter timeframe won't have made for the OTL warweariness. 
Though thinking about WWII a number of Danes who hadn't been able to take part in the fighting due to the occupation were allowed service in the British Army post-war in Europe with a number serving in the Far East so there may still be quite a number who will want to do "their part of the job". I have edit the post.
I agree that the ANZ forces would be interested in keeping Japan at as much of a distance as they can but I would suspect they would also have been disbanded pretty quickly once the war in Europe ended. Some might well be maintained, although IIRC it was an all volunteer force so might have gone very quickly once the threat seemed over. Probably have a couple of divisions who would either still be ready or be reformed once the war in the east started - or possibly a bit before if Canberra saw which way the wind was blowing. However I suspect the bulk of the ground forces committed to fighting the Japanese from the empire would probably be from the UK and India. From what you said a fair number of wartime conscripts were still being demoblized when war in the east started and they could well have been sent which would have increased the manpower from Britain and also cause some resentment which would hinder the Tories in the election.
I'm not asking for editing the election results and having Labour in - or possibly a huge parliament but with them as the largest party. The Tories have been in power for a decade and while the war has gone very well compared to OTL people won't know the latter and the Tories would also suffer from their performance during the depression and possibly to a degree over appeasement. However given things have gone so much better and Labour have had significantly less time to gain experience/status as a member of a war-time coalition so I would expect their majority would be somewhat smaller and possibly their policies somewhat less socialist. Also would the Beveridge Report have been published in TTL which set much of the guide-lines for the welfare state?
Don't get me wrong. I think the vast bulk of the reforms OTL were very valuable and the country is in much better condition here to carry them out but in terms of the TL I wonder what policies and majority Labour would have.
One other big thing would be what is the view of the empire in Britain at the moment. India will probably be the most pressing issue and Britain is vastly better off to face this issue with Labour rather than Tories in power but depending on how the European war has been presented you could have a lot of people, including many servicemen questioning the empire's merits - both morally and economically. Which again might have been a factor in a Tory defeat, especially if an outspoken Churchill was making clear signs he would oppose independence for India.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 16, 2024 22:16:12 GMT
Also its going to be interesting what happens in Japan now.Sounds like no actual military restrictions apply to them or other controls but their going to have a hell of a problem restoring their economy, even if its not taken anything like the kicking it did OTL and willingness of other powers to supply it with oil could be limited. - Might even find the Soviets could be the most willing, for a suitable price of course.
Also without a clearing out of the militarists while their been discredited they will still have some power and possibly still a tendency to remove opponents by violent means. As such it could be a messy if not bloody time for the country with a lot of instability for years to come.
Mind you it depends on whether or not your taking the TL much further now the wars are [hopefully] over.
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,729
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Jul 17, 2024 10:36:48 GMT
I was thinking with war in Europe having ended during Spring 1941 and some months with various operations to secure peace - Hungary and such - a number of service personnel would have been demobilized prior to the outbreak of war in the Far East by November 1941. Hence why the low number of British troops sent to the Far East. Regarding the numbers of Dominions and India I used more or less the OTL troops mobilized up to the Japanese attack in December 1941 - hence the Middle East Strategic Reserve for a large part of Australian and New Zealand troops as well as one Canadian and for a short cameo a South African one in addition to a large Indian contingent were the troops in the Far East.
I'd guess the Aussies and Kiwi's would have been willing to defend themselves - remember the Australian PM wanting his troops home when the Japanese became more aggressive which pattern have been more or less followed here minus Japanese occupation of Northern FIC.
So basically conscription ended in Britain just a few months before the Japanese attack but still a large number would be available also to keep the lid on Germany just recently defeated and occupied - at least to my understanding and with an unpredictable Uncle Joe in Moscow.
I would have no problem in editing the elections though I thought of the Far East War as something Europeans would have little real interest in though of course British and French as well as Netherlands governments would though the shorter timeframe won't have made for the OTL warweariness.
Though thinking about WWII a number of Danes who hadn't been able to take part in the fighting due to the occupation were allowed service in the British Army post-war in Europe with a number serving in the Far East so there may still be quite a number who will want to do "their part of the job". I have edit the post.
I agree that the ANZ forces would be interested in keeping Japan at as much of a distance as they can but I would suspect they would also have been disbanded pretty quickly once the war in Europe ended. Some might well be maintained, although IIRC it was an all volunteer force so might have gone very quickly once the threat seemed over. Probably have a couple of divisions who would either still be ready or be reformed once the war in the east started - or possibly a bit before if Canberra saw which way the wind was blowing. However I suspect the bulk of the ground forces committed to fighting the Japanese from the empire would probably be from the UK and India. From what you said a fair number of wartime conscripts were still being demoblized when war in the east started and they could well have been sent which would have increased the manpower from Britain and also cause some resentment which would hinder the Tories in the election.
I'm not asking for editing the election results and having Labour in - or possibly a huge parliament but with them as the largest party. The Tories have been in power for a decade and while the war has gone very well compared to OTL people won't know the latter and the Tories would also suffer from their performance during the depression and possibly to a degree over appeasement. However given things have gone so much better and Labour have had significantly less time to gain experience/status as a member of a war-time coalition so I would expect their majority would be somewhat smaller and possibly their policies somewhat less socialist. Also would the Beveridge Report have been published in TTL which set much of the guide-lines for the welfare state?
Don't get me wrong. I think the vast bulk of the reforms OTL were very valuable and the country is in much better condition here to carry them out but in terms of the TL I wonder what policies and majority Labour would have.
One other big thing would be what is the view of the empire in Britain at the moment. India will probably be the most pressing issue and Britain is vastly better off to face this issue with Labour rather than Tories in power but depending on how the European war has been presented you could have a lot of people, including many servicemen questioning the empire's merits - both morally and economically. Which again might have been a factor in a Tory defeat, especially if an outspoken Churchill was making clear signs he would oppose independence for India.
Re: Armed forces of the Empire (British) - I assume as the situation in FE haven't change significantly except the not happening French-Thai War of 1940/41 and subsequent Japanese occupation of Northern FIC there would still be a lot of tension and thought on what Japan might do. Which OTL by February 1940 had the 8. Australian Division being kept in the FE while the 3 Divisions that had gone to the ME would ITTL be in WEurope along the NZ Division. The 1. NZ Divison would still be at home ready to defend NZ. The 1. Can Div had taken part in 2BEF during June 1940 so would also be in WEurope along the Aussies and at least 32 British (UK) Div's which may during the fighthing there have been enlarged by quite a number of Brigades and possibly a larger Can force. The South African 1.+2. Div's would then assume the role of ME Strategic Reserve.
As part of the perceived increasing threat of War during the late 1930's the Indian Army had been expanded - too here.
ITTL with War in Europe ending by May 1941 the WAllies still have to consider the 300+ Soviet Divisions on the Polish-Czech-Romanian-Finn-Baltic Nations borders. The Finns have teamed up with the Swedes by March 1941 to maker their own deterrent ITTL but the Soviets have to be pressured to leave the Baltic Nations and not overrun Poland or "incorporate" Bessarabia as well as deterring Mussolini from doing silly stuff in the Balkans or Austria with his overinflatede Garrison in Albania - surely the latter a mainly French concern on land but a very British one at sea in the Med and possible troop transports ensuring.
I didn't figure out the full timetable I well know but at least some months would pass with the clearing of the political situation in Europe which wouldn't have been negotiated with the Soviets that fast without a substantial force of boots on the ground. Thus the Australians would still like at least some of their Divisons to go home as soon as possible as already by February 1941 the 8. Division had been scattered throughout FE as a garrison. Which will also be the case of the NZ with the British doing the main job in Europe there will be little to spare initially for the FE. By OTL November 1940 there had been an Empire Staff conference at Singapore in which the Australians were weary of lack of defences according to the Official history in link; February 1941 there was another meeting of Britain, Dutch and Australia and 22 April 1941 the UK, US and Dutch convened to discuss a possible Japanese attack - ofc with background in the general situation in the FE but specifically Japanese presence in FIC. With the general OTL state in the FE prior to Japanese attack I don't see Australia improving its defences much apart from 8. Division scattered in the area mainly in Malaya. As the British would be forced to keep a rather large force in Europe it would insist of some Australian troops to not be disbanded as the Empire strategy was based on Defence of Singapore to reinforce FE (as seen in the linked to document) - thus I would expect the Australians to not so quickly demobilize or at least make some sort of arrangement to have a force on call for operations off Australian territory - the New Guinea force would then be Australian troops and the AIF at least partially kept in reserve on short notice and probably so too regarding NZ that would be more willing to agree to Empire needs. That way the Australian contribution would be changed to 1 Division in Malaya and 1 own defence force in New Guinea with 2 Divisions on short notice for mobilization. Still of course the situation ITTL is changed with no Fall of France but I get the impression that with Churchill diminishing the possible Japanese threat the Australians wasn't convinced of this.
Re: social change in Britain - I'd expect so if only basing on the effect of rationing during war and possible cut back of such should the Conservatives remain in power. Don't really know if they'd do so but if could see a Labour coming to power. As You say possibly not the whole package and at least with better founding due to better economy.
Re: Empire - wouldn't better economy as such be a lever for the Empire. Ofc there was wants of independence but OTOH there was no Japanese example as a counter to European supremacy. Which is oft cited as a driver for independence movements in FE. Though OTL with Churchill out of power why did India then still want independence NOW? Wouldn't the situation remain much the same independent of elections result in Britain?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 17, 2024 15:16:42 GMT
On the affects of the war on the colonial status I think the primary thing was the shattering defeats and the fact that the European powers were only able to regain their colonies largely on the back of the US effort against Japan western prestige was shattered. The much worse home economies OTL was also a big factor as was the sheer horror of the Nazi regime and that in counter to it the western powers had made great play of fighting for human rights and general liberty, which is somewhat awkward when your a large colonial power.
Here I think the big factors would be a) On the side of the colonies they haven't seen their master's defeated and also Japanese behaviour, especially in China will undermine the Asia for the Asians propaganda it used. This isn't going to weaken the desire for increasing self government and ultimately independence but in many cases, especially in smaller, weaker colonies they will be more concerned that their not jumping from the frying pan into the fire and finding themselves worse off than under colonial rule. This won't stop the process but as long as the colonial power has a fairly light hand and is at least talking about moves towards independence it will weaken the drive somewhat, at least for a few years.
b) On the side of the colonial powers the successes in the two wars and much better economy than OTL will tend to make many people think they can hold onto their colonies longer/indefinitely. I think this would be especially the case in France because they will still be a great world power and also their colonial policies often seek to establish a local elite that are viewed and to a degree view themselves as French. With bells on in the case of Algeria which is technically a full part of metropolitan France - albeit I think there's a very restricted franchise for 'native' populations. The war for independence there is likely to be bloodier and longer than OTL unless something changes drastically.
I would say India is an exception here, at least with Churchill gone and Labour in power because with its own resources, population and that there's probably been a sizeable number of recruiting for the Indian army. As such there's no way Britain can keep India by force and just about everybody outside the more reactionary Tories are likely to accept that. There might be an attempt to propose some sort of dominion status and if done skillfully it might work but I suspect its a decade or so too late for that and that as with southern Ireland that would probably still be a stepping stone to full independence. Of course the other big issues is whether you can avoid the partition or at least the massive level of bloodshed that accompanied it. I doubt you can avoid partition but possibly with some more planning a lot of the deaths might be avoidable.
As such on the colonial issue I would see decolonization occurring but somewhat slower and bloodier in some [many?] cases. India and the DEI could be the two 1st to move towards full independent but with both cases possibly being different in detail. In the DEI you might see the region split between a number of new colonies as even the Muslim regions outside that island might not want to be dominated by Java which has I think a clear majority of the total population and as the core of the colonial territory probably also the most advanced infrastructure and the like.
Similarly while the 1st steps might be in SE Asia/India you are likely to see growing efforts for self-government in the ME - with Britain having the additional millstone of its mandate for Palestine and with Africa following on somewhat later, because of their lesser social, political and economic development and also because of the presence of white settler populations in a number of colonies. Africa could follow a longer and bloodier route or possibly not if some of the colonial powers learn lessons from events in Asia. However this depends as I said on how far you want to take things.
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,729
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Jul 17, 2024 19:31:39 GMT
On the affects of the war on the colonial status I think the primary thing was the shattering defeats and the fact that the European powers were only able to regain their colonies largely on the back of the US effort against Japan western prestige was shattered. The much worse home economies OTL was also a big factor as was the sheer horror of the Nazi regime and that in counter to it the western powers had made great play of fighting for human rights and general liberty, which is somewhat awkward when your a large colonial power.
Here I think the big factors would be a) On the side of the colonies they haven't seen their master's defeated and also Japanese behaviour, especially in China will undermine the Asia for the Asians propaganda it used. This isn't going to weaken the desire for increasing self government and ultimately independence but in many cases, especially in smaller, weaker colonies they will be more concerned that their not jumping from the frying pan into the fire and finding themselves worse off than under colonial rule. This won't stop the process but as long as the colonial power has a fairly light hand and is at least talking about moves towards independence it will weaken the drive somewhat, at least for a few years.
b) On the side of the colonial powers the successes in the two wars and much better economy than OTL will tend to make many people think they can hold onto their colonies longer/indefinitely. I think this would be especially the case in France because they will still be a great world power and also their colonial policies often seek to establish a local elite that are viewed and to a degree view themselves as French. With bells on in the case of Algeria which is technically a full part of metropolitan France - albeit I think there's a very restricted franchise for 'native' populations. The war for independence there is likely to be bloodier and longer than OTL unless something changes drastically.
I would say India is an exception here, at least with Churchill gone and Labour in power because with its own resources, population and that there's probably been a sizeable number of recruiting for the Indian army. As such there's no way Britain can keep India by force and just about everybody outside the more reactionary Tories are likely to accept that. There might be an attempt to propose some sort of dominion status and if done skillfully it might work but I suspect its a decade or so too late for that and that as with southern Ireland that would probably still be a stepping stone to full independence. Of course the other big issues is whether you can avoid the partition or at least the massive level of bloodshed that accompanied it. I doubt you can avoid partition but possibly with some more planning a lot of the deaths might be avoidable.
As such on the colonial issue I would see decolonization occurring but somewhat slower and bloodier in some [many?] cases. India and the DEI could be the two 1st to move towards full independent but with both cases possibly being different in detail. In the DEI you might see the region split between a number of new colonies as even the Muslim regions outside that island might not want to be dominated by Java which has I think a clear majority of the total population and as the core of the colonial territory probably also the most advanced infrastructure and the like.
Similarly while the 1st steps might be in SE Asia/India you are likely to see growing efforts for self-government in the ME - with Britain having the additional millstone of its mandate for Palestine and with Africa following on somewhat later, because of their lesser social, political and economic development and also because of the presence of white settler populations in a number of colonies. Africa could follow a longer and bloodier route or possibly not if some of the colonial powers learn lessons from events in Asia. However this depends as I said on how far you want to take things.
stevep Thanks for your input - very much appreciated. I'm thinking of wrapping it up soon though have a few thoughts on this much changed world that I'm going to share. Still have to think it through even if limited.  |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 17, 2024 22:54:57 GMT
On the affects of the war on the colonial status I think the primary thing was the shattering defeats and the fact that the European powers were only able to regain their colonies largely on the back of the US effort against Japan western prestige was shattered. The much worse home economies OTL was also a big factor as was the sheer horror of the Nazi regime and that in counter to it the western powers had made great play of fighting for human rights and general liberty, which is somewhat awkward when your a large colonial power.
Here I think the big factors would be a) On the side of the colonies they haven't seen their master's defeated and also Japanese behaviour, especially in China will undermine the Asia for the Asians propaganda it used. This isn't going to weaken the desire for increasing self government and ultimately independence but in many cases, especially in smaller, weaker colonies they will be more concerned that their not jumping from the frying pan into the fire and finding themselves worse off than under colonial rule. This won't stop the process but as long as the colonial power has a fairly light hand and is at least talking about moves towards independence it will weaken the drive somewhat, at least for a few years.
b) On the side of the colonial powers the successes in the two wars and much better economy than OTL will tend to make many people think they can hold onto their colonies longer/indefinitely. I think this would be especially the case in France because they will still be a great world power and also their colonial policies often seek to establish a local elite that are viewed and to a degree view themselves as French. With bells on in the case of Algeria which is technically a full part of metropolitan France - albeit I think there's a very restricted franchise for 'native' populations. The war for independence there is likely to be bloodier and longer than OTL unless something changes drastically.
I would say India is an exception here, at least with Churchill gone and Labour in power because with its own resources, population and that there's probably been a sizeable number of recruiting for the Indian army. As such there's no way Britain can keep India by force and just about everybody outside the more reactionary Tories are likely to accept that. There might be an attempt to propose some sort of dominion status and if done skillfully it might work but I suspect its a decade or so too late for that and that as with southern Ireland that would probably still be a stepping stone to full independence. Of course the other big issues is whether you can avoid the partition or at least the massive level of bloodshed that accompanied it. I doubt you can avoid partition but possibly with some more planning a lot of the deaths might be avoidable.
As such on the colonial issue I would see decolonization occurring but somewhat slower and bloodier in some [many?] cases. India and the DEI could be the two 1st to move towards full independent but with both cases possibly being different in detail. In the DEI you might see the region split between a number of new colonies as even the Muslim regions outside that island might not want to be dominated by Java which has I think a clear majority of the total population and as the core of the colonial territory probably also the most advanced infrastructure and the like.
Similarly while the 1st steps might be in SE Asia/India you are likely to see growing efforts for self-government in the ME - with Britain having the additional millstone of its mandate for Palestine and with Africa following on somewhat later, because of their lesser social, political and economic development and also because of the presence of white settler populations in a number of colonies. Africa could follow a longer and bloodier route or possibly not if some of the colonial powers learn lessons from events in Asia. However this depends as I said on how far you want to take things.
stevep Thanks for your input - very much appreciated. I'm thinking of wrapping it up soon though have a few thoughts on this much changed world that I'm going to share. Still have to think it through even if limited.
You mean you won't be taking the TL up to the 23rd Century! That's not acceptable. 
Seriously have to see what you come up with and hopefully I haven't dragged you too far off course with all my wanderings.
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,729
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Jul 18, 2024 7:34:32 GMT
stevep Thanks for your input - very much appreciated. I'm thinking of wrapping it up soon though have a few thoughts on this much changed world that I'm going to share. Still have to think it through even if limited.
You mean you won't be taking the TL up to the 23rd Century! That's not acceptable.
Seriously have to see what you come up with and hopefully I haven't dragged you too far off course with all my wanderings.
Death of Stalin - and a Mussolini cameo!
There was nothing to drag off as I as usual hadn't fixed the course - too many TLs have taught me not to do so..  |
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,729
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Jul 18, 2024 7:35:53 GMT
France and the Netherlands were able to hold onto their Far Eastern Colonies for some time before the local independence movements found sponsors. In NEI this delayed beginning of an independence struggle made for the Dutch to be able to play the various fractions to some extend territorially divided against each other with some of the more politically minded trying to get a one state through but in the end it failed like in FIC.
FIC had seen a prolonged French fight against the mainly Marxist independence movement of Ho Chi Mihn but the road from Soviet Union for arms and propaganda to travel was long.
In French North Africa an independence movement began its struggle for getting rid of French supremacy; a fight that would last a couple of decades. France had in all but officially made North Algeria part of France with the area divided into Departments and trying to marginalize the Arab and Berber population to get them to leave those areas.
No small number of volunteers in the struggle was former French Colonial soldiers having served in the Far East and seen France aid the Chinese in their struggle but also getting some experience of Chinese Communist's proclaimed struggle against a repressive Government.
Italy would also see unrest and uprisings in Libya as oil prospecting had shown a volume worth extracting with the Libyans seeing this as their being even more persecuted by the Italian colonial authority and chasen from their homes in the Greater Syrte area.
Britain would see an increase in the violence in the Palestine Mandate area from both Jews and Palestinians.
India would be the real British problem though through a renovated Colonial Empire a Commonwealth of Nations was set up still with the British Monarch as titular ruler making for the largest one-nation on the planet in area and numbers.
India however wanted out and if member of the Commonwealth only as a sovereign state without the English King as sovereign. As in the French and Dutch colonies the process was as prolonged as Britain could make it but the destiny was clear. However the Indian colony became two countries as Muslims and Hindu's found great difficulty in living alongside each other in a united nation. The separation wasn't without violent exchanges with thoudsends dead but not as bloody as some had feared.
The new Commonwealth wasn't without problems mainly in the poorer parts in Africa and the West Indies and South Africa remained a sore spot of segregated races.
An abject lesson of the de-colonization process had been how fast the process would take depending on the will of Britain to hold onto the territories in relation to available resources and an aversion of the level of violence to result of the process it drawn out too long.
All of these colonial unrest showed a marked Soviet interest in creating problems for the French, British and Italian rulers by export of small arms and training in the Soviet Union of partisans but generally it was a long journey from FIC or NEI or Central Africa to the Soviet Union.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 18, 2024 11:15:13 GMT
Basically as OTL but generally longer and bloodier. A pity but distinctly probable in the circumstances. I wonder how social changes occur compared to OTL and also how the balance of power in Europe goes, with TTL's equivalent of NATO - as something like that is likely sooner or later - being weaker without the US and with the status of Italy and Germany being somewhat uncertain but having more lands, population and resources in eastern Europe compared to a smaller USSR but one not so savagely blooded by OTL German onslaught. - Although this might well have a distinct down-side for Stalin and his successors as without the demonstration that there could be even more evil systems than Soviet communism any attempts at military expansion which stalls could see a lot of defections.
Also no mention of the US. Its likely to be active in an anti-colonialism role - which probably seeking to tighten its own hold on much of Latin America. Will be less violent than the Soviets but a different problem for the western European nations. Also without fighting savage injustice in Europe or Asia in WWII its likely reform inside the US will be slowed, both on racial issues and probably also other areas such as sexual and religious tolerance and equality.
At the same time without the huge scale of the bloodbath of OTL WWII and then the intense cold war there's a lot more resources and people who could be used to change things. Also the social and political changes in the UK and possibly other western European countries could create a momentum to question the status of empire, both in terms of its morality and also its economic viability as much of the British empire - arguably including India as well - were a net burden for Britain.
Anyway we're reaching the end stages of a very interesting and thought out TL and while sad to see it go all good thinks much come to an end. Many thanks for all the work you're put into it.
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,729
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Jul 18, 2024 19:13:19 GMT
Basically as OTL but generally longer and bloodier. A pity but distinctly probable in the circumstances. I wonder how social changes occur compared to OTL and also how the balance of power in Europe goes, with TTL's equivalent of NATO - as something like that is likely sooner or later - being weaker without the US and with the status of Italy and Germany being somewhat uncertain but having more lands, population and resources in eastern Europe compared to a smaller USSR but one not so savagely blooded by OTL German onslaught. - Although this might well have a distinct down-side for Stalin and his successors as without the demonstration that there could be even more evil systems than Soviet communism any attempts at military expansion which stalls could see a lot of defections.
Also no mention of the US. Its likely to be active in an anti-colonialism role - which probably seeking to tighten its own hold on much of Latin America. Will be less violent than the Soviets but a different problem for the western European nations. Also without fighting savage injustice in Europe or Asia in WWII its likely reform inside the US will be slowed, both on racial issues and probably also other areas such as sexual and religious tolerance and equality.
At the same time without the huge scale of the bloodbath of OTL WWII and then the intense cold war there's a lot more resources and people who could be used to change things. Also the social and political changes in the UK and possibly other western European countries could create a momentum to question the status of empire, both in terms of its morality and also its economic viability as much of the British empire - arguably including India as well - were a net burden for Britain.
Anyway we're reaching the end stages of a very interesting and thought out TL and while sad to see it go all good thinks much come to an end. Many thanks for all the work you're put into it.
Cheers - though its not the end yet. I have another two posts to round it out but we are much in agreement here. I would expect the South Americans to be vocal in LoN on colonial rule and facing a difficult situation with nowhere to complain of US interference in their national issues.
Germany I see as basically the FRG of post-WWII though with a different constitution and less villified than OTL due to holocaust not really having taken off except in Poland. A small glimpse on Germany in the last post.
A marked difference of this TL is the lack of Nuclear weapons though I expect them to be developed but in a slower pace and Soviet Union not having a B-29 clone as a means of delivery nor along the line a V-2 clone.
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,729
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Jul 18, 2024 19:13:57 GMT
Italy
remained a fascist state untill the death of Benito Mussolini in 1960. He never went the Franco way of making his country a tourist summer resort as he steadfastly clung to idea of the New Roman Empire and its supremacy thus Italy would slowly sink into a Mediterranean siesta for most of two decades.
For some years LoN had debated the future of Abyssinia with Emperor Haile Selassie ever adressing the Assembly demanding the return of his unjustly conquered Nation. The aftermath of the Far East war 1941-42 had also made for more attention to the situation in Abyssinia led by Sweden and the International Red Cross.
In one respect Italy gained some of the conflict; having not participated in the European War and only limited in China the Aero Industry of Italy's had tried to keep pace with the WAllies on military aircraft but its real contribution to popular knowledge about Italy in the post-War world was its 4-engine Savoia Marchetti SM.95 airliner.
Though the Lockheed Constellation L749 the Douglas DC-4 and the Boeing 307 Stratoliner had all taken to the air in part to fly trans-Atlantic to Europe only few found their way into the now slowly blooming airtransport still mainly of Air-Mail but with a growing passenger transport part too.
Almost all British and French aircraft factories as well as Fokker of the Netherlands was developing larger airliners specifically for the trans-Atlantic routes but Italy had been the first out of the gate in Europe and with a price that upcoming European Airline Companies such as SAS the Scandinavian Corporation though also comprising Finnair as an associate partner could afford.
With the Germans out the Italians had more room to enter the market.
Some had tried making a business of second hand military 4-engine bombers converted to airliners but it had been a too expensive route to follow in relation to cargo and passengers capacity vis-a-vis the few dedicated airliners – and Savoia Marchetti had managed to lay a golde egg.
Having participated in the China War Italy asked for readmittance to LoN which was blocked by Britain and France – the Yugoslavian demand of a referendum of Zara, Fiume and Istria in Dalmatia as well as the Greek demand on the Dodecanese Islands which was also claimed by Turkey as Italy had occupied the islands 1912 were rejected by Italy and the matter came to nothing.
During 1955 secret talks had been held with Haile Selassie, the Italian Foreign Minister, the British and French Foreign Ministers and representatives of the USA and Soviet Union agreeing on Italian de-colonization following the death of Mussolini.
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,729
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Jul 18, 2024 19:14:42 GMT
Albania had become independent 1951 during the 3. Balkan War.
The War had broken out during 1950 because of border skirmishes between Bulgaria and Greece.
The skirmishes had escalated dragging Yugoslavia into the conflict.
As the Bulgarian – Greek fighting had spilled over the Turk border in Thrake that nation had joined too though only to assert its border and hadn't invaded either bellingerent nation.
The war had then turned to a Yugoslavia – Bulgaria/Greek war over Macedonia in which Mussolini had shown signs of entering but had been pressured by Britain and Frence to withdraw.
In the aftermath of the Italian withdrawal Albania had proclaimed its independence and then entered the fighting in Macedonia.
As all participants were low on means to continue the fight this petered out during 1951 and a European peacekeeping force of British-French-German and a joint Scandinavian Corps had moved into the area to keep the warring parties separated.
Stalin had tried assuming the traditional Russian mantle of protecting the Serbs/Jugoslavians but these had rejected the Communist way as had the other bellingerents involved in the fight.
Romania had wisely kept out as it had a border with the Soviet Union and still didn't trust Stalin not going for Bessarabia.
The next year 1952 another conflict broke out between Hungary and Romania. This was a much more serious matter as the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the other European Nations was on the brink of going hot as the Hungarians were more inclined to be the recipients of Soviet aid.
Stalin had also reminded Czechoslovakia of 1938 but had again been rejected as the Czechs had learnt a lesson allying themselves as close as possible to Britain and France.
Only by despatching another larger multinational Corps to Romania was the peace preserved as the Soviet Union retreated its troops from the Romanian border leaving the Soviets to aerial supply of Hungary by violation of Czech airspace which necessiated a RAF/French Airforce deployment in Slovakia to deter the Soviets from continueing their supply.
1953 and the death of Stalin saw some detende in Europe and the Far East.
*** the end ***
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 18, 2024 22:39:51 GMT
Albania had become independent 1951 during the 3. Balkan War. The War had broken out during 1950 because of border skirmishes between Bulgaria and Greece. The skirmishes had escalated dragging Yugoslavia into the conflict. As the Bulgarian – Greek fighting had spilled over the Turk border in Thrake that nation had joined too though only to assert its border and hadn't invaded either bellingerent nation. The war had then turned to a Yugoslavia – Bulgaria/Greek war over Macedonia in which Mussolini had shown signs of entering but had been pressured by Britain and Frence to withdraw. In the aftermath of the Italian withdrawal Albania had proclaimed its independence and then entered the fighting in Macedonia. As all participants were low on means to continue the fight this petered out during 1951 and a European peacekeeping force of British-French-German and a joint Scandinavian Corps had moved into the area to keep the warring parties separated. Stalin had tried assuming the traditional Russian mantle of protecting the Serbs/Jugoslavians but these had rejected the Communist way as had the other bellingerents involved in the fight. Romania had wisely kept out as it had a border with the Soviet Union and still didn't trust Stalin not going for Bessarabia. The next year 1952 another conflict broke out between Hungary and Romania. This was a much more serious matter as the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the other European Nations was on the brink of going hot as the Hungarians were more inclined to be the recipients of Soviet aid. Stalin had also reminded Czechoslovakia of 1938 but had again been rejected as the Czechs had learnt a lesson allying themselves as close as possible to Britain and France. Only by despatching another larger multinational Corps to Romania was the peace preserved as the Soviet Union retreated its troops from the Romanian border leaving the Soviets to aerial supply of Hungary by violation of Czech airspace which necessiated a RAF/French Airforce deployment in Slovakia to deter the Soviets from continueing their supply. 1953 and the death of Stalin saw some detende in Europe and the Far East. *** the end ***
Many thanks. I still have plenty of questions of course but will avoid dragging things out any further.
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,729
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Jul 19, 2024 8:45:12 GMT
Albania had become independent 1951 during the 3. Balkan War. The War had broken out during 1950 because of border skirmishes between Bulgaria and Greece. The skirmishes had escalated dragging Yugoslavia into the conflict. As the Bulgarian – Greek fighting had spilled over the Turk border in Thrake that nation had joined too though only to assert its border and hadn't invaded either bellingerent nation. The war had then turned to a Yugoslavia – Bulgaria/Greek war over Macedonia in which Mussolini had shown signs of entering but had been pressured by Britain and Frence to withdraw. In the aftermath of the Italian withdrawal Albania had proclaimed its independence and then entered the fighting in Macedonia. As all participants were low on means to continue the fight this petered out during 1951 and a European peacekeeping force of British-French-German and a joint Scandinavian Corps had moved into the area to keep the warring parties separated. Stalin had tried assuming the traditional Russian mantle of protecting the Serbs/Jugoslavians but these had rejected the Communist way as had the other bellingerents involved in the fight. Romania had wisely kept out as it had a border with the Soviet Union and still didn't trust Stalin not going for Bessarabia. The next year 1952 another conflict broke out between Hungary and Romania. This was a much more serious matter as the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the other European Nations was on the brink of going hot as the Hungarians were more inclined to be the recipients of Soviet aid. Stalin had also reminded Czechoslovakia of 1938 but had again been rejected as the Czechs had learnt a lesson allying themselves as close as possible to Britain and France. Only by despatching another larger multinational Corps to Romania was the peace preserved as the Soviet Union retreated its troops from the Romanian border leaving the Soviets to aerial supply of Hungary by violation of Czech airspace which necessiated a RAF/French Airforce deployment in Slovakia to deter the Soviets from continueing their supply. 1953 and the death of Stalin saw some detende in Europe and the Far East. *** the end ***
Many thanks. I still have plenty of questions of course but will avoid dragging things out any further.
Your welcome.
I haven't earlier while writing a TL looked up and read this much because I wanted to be as close to OTL as possible and identify what could have interfered to bring about changes. Suffice to say standard works especially dated ones exclude a lot of interesting stuff so newer and older more detailled sources supplied that - this of course interrupted the continued flow of post's but I had to reread what I've written to be sure on my take on it.
Discussions have been interesting and added to the TL as they made look up even more stuff mainly on British politics. Thanks a lot for critique and inspiration it made my work better - and challenging but also forced me to do more than expected in research and doing that usually made interesting stuff crop up.
|
|
