Kalter Krieg - a TL of a three way cold war

[MSZ]

Sorry for a long time without updates. No vacation for me this year, so the little time I have for myself I spend on relaxation. This chapter took way longer to write than I expected.




Goring’s death and the German call for a “relaxation” of relations between Germany and the UK was both a revolutionary, and an evolutionary change. Revolutionary, as until that point the anti-capitalist propaganda in the fascist states was growing, rather weakening. While the western powers were initially considered potential allies in the general conflict against bolshevism, their hesitation in allying with Germany, followed by numerous conflicts over influence in both Europe and abroad, combined with the western powers eventual recovery from the great depression and achieving better economic results, development and prosperity than Germany, made the Reich treat them more as enemies than allies. As the expansion of fascism could only occur in the “colonized world” at the expanse of the western empires, conflict there was inevitable, making the west and the axis enemies and competitors. The wealth of their societies in turn made Berlin, as well as other fascist governments, fear that seeing that wealth in the west, their societies would turn towards capitalism in pursuit of achieving the same prosperity. To prevent that and retain popularity, propaganda campaigns were started demonizing capitalism by pointing out its flaws, the weaknesses of their societies and governments, their lack of morals and decadency. In other words, to prevent people from wanting to abandon an ideology which made them sacrifice wealth in its name, the people were offered more ideology – rather than more wealth which might have proven the feasibility of the fascist system. But with Goring’s death these attacks were significantly reduced in an attempt to “reset” relations and show good faith.

This turn of events was also evolutionary in nature. The idea of establishing an Anglo-German alliance for the two powers to divide the world into “spheres of influence” had been around for a long time, even before the Great War. Returning to it had been part of German foreign policy for just as long, with Britain turning down such offers as German “offers” usually involved somehow allowing the Reich to dominate the European continent and somehow gain control of non-British colonies, in return for “friendship and cooperation”. In other words, Berlin demanded being given a free hand in European affairs and a good position at striking against the British Isles in the future in return for nothing. Thus what sounded like a “generous offer” in the Reich chancellery, was translated as threats and insults in London, always leading to backlash. This time was thus both the same and different. Hanke’s first trip to London, which was greatly anticipated, would have him present not so much an “offer” but a “new approach” in relations. Hanke would once again confirm that Germany had no hostile intentions towards the west and suggested talks on another Anglo-German Naval Treaty, believing that by convincing Britain to that, it would no longer feel like it’s security was threatened and be more “friendly” towards the expansion of fascism in the post-colonial world, especially in the Middle East. But believing German promises would require breaking through a great wall of distrust, as Germany had no way of guaranteeing its promises – even suggestions that Germany would not be opposed to the permanent stationing of British troops in France was not enough, as it wasn’t something Germany would be “offering”, rather at best accepting something that wasn’t in its power to decide in the first place.

Furtherly, the call for “Entspannungs” came at time when Britain would actually begin to doubt the real power of the German Reich and see itself as the one for which time worked in favour. Britain realised well that Germany’s apparent will to seek better relations with the UK came at a time soon after the Suez Crisis, when Germany, proud and strong when facing the west would quickly change its tune when the threat of a UK-USSR alliance came close. It was thus understood that this change of attitude wasn’t truly genuine, but forced by the axis powers weakness in face of such a tactical alliance. Germany also had nothing to offer to Britain other than supposed “cooperation and support” in the post-colonial world where Germany wielded some influence over the local fascist and nationalist organizations threatening stability – but that also assumed that Germany was able to control such organizations, which was heavily doubted. Return to a naval treaty was also of little value, as the Royal Navy already greatly surpassed the Kriegsmarine in power, and the fear of a second Hochseeflotte capable of threatening the Home Fleet wasn’t as strong as it used to – the British naval industry being larger and more modern than the German one. Overall, while British diplomats would appreciate the change in attitude, they would not consider it as an actual change in policy, as Berlin thought it was doing – the offers made being irrelevant to London.




The Royal Navy remained the most superior fleet in the world.


What did however interest London was the possibility of reducing the capacity of German rocket arsenals and air fleets, as well as land forces, allowing Britain to at least reduce the annual increase of budget spendings on defence, which were rising constantly both in relative and absolute terms since 1938. This of course strained the British budget, which had to take into account many different threats. Whereas in the 1940’s the greatest threat to British security was thought to come from the German Reich, in the 50’s that attitude changed with the USSR being seen as that due to its militant support of communist rebels in Africa and south Asia. By the 60’s London had to realize that both these powers represented a threat and that it couldn’t constantly prepare itself for defence against both. The weakness of that came from the fact that doing so required eternal, costly vigilance while waiting for the German and Soviet systems to change, which didn’t seem to occur. By being able to reduce the pressure from one, it could thus potentially better act against the other. In the words of Winston Churchill, the former first lord of admiralty:

Originally Posted by Winston Churchill

“If the dangers of war and tyranny are removed, there is no doubt that science and co-operation can bring in the next few years to the world an expansion of material well-being beyond anything that has yet occurred in human experience.”

Since the gap between the capitalist and fascist states in welfare could only grow larger, accelerating the increase of that gap would also increase the pressure on Berlin to reform and bring the societies of the axis states closer to abolish fascist rule. This view was however contested by many “hard-heads” of the military, who considered that only military failures of the militarist regimes would change them – thus also demanding greater support for their policies of “active”, rather than “passive” resistance against growing threats in the colonies and other overseas domains of Britain.





British propaganda supporting the fight against anti-colonial rebels


The policy that Britain would undertake against the anti-colonial movement would initially come from a lack of strategy, leading those in charge to concentrate on defending what was most important. This meant that in general, in every “threatened territory” the colonial forces would defend the urban areas and the resource-rich ones, leaving the rural areas with less protection, allowing rebellious movements there to grow. Only later would London take up the approach of “winning the hearts and minds” of the people through development, aid and reforms, denying the rebels access to a cheap manpower willing to fight. But since doing that was impossible to be done everywhere were Britain was present, choices would have to made which areas were important enough to warrant increased development and engagement, and which ones did not. The Suez Crisis was one example of the policy in practice – while Egypt and Soudan were not considered important enough to keep them under full control, the Suez Canal and Palestine were. Thus while Britain would grudgingly agree to withdraw from north Africa, it would ensure its military presence on the Sinai Peninsula and Israel, where it could also count on the locals support for their presence.

Similar behaviour would take place in other areas of Africa. British Central Africa was plagued with dissent and anti-white sentiment since the concentration of the former colonies into the new, semi-independent entity. The native black population would strongly oppose the government which was under significant white influence both from the UK and the local minority, often resorting to mob attacks on churches and white farming communities. The usual governmental response in the form of police action would only further escalate the violence, eventually leading to the “Chimurenga” or the Bush War, where Soviet and Chinese sponsored rebels would fight against the governmental forces, backed by Britain. The black rebellions and uprisings would not be limited to Central Africa, but occur in eastern Africa as well, in the form of the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya and other communist organizations fighting for the “liberation of Africa”.




British soldier capturing an african rebel in Kenya


But while things looked bleak in the black continents interior, they were also relatively better in the areas closer to the sea. The Mau Mau rebellion, being extremely violent and depraved, driven by an ideology being a mix of Marxism and tribal primitivism, failed to capture a lot of support for the cause of African independence, leading most African nationalists to opt for more peaceful means of transition – India being an example of it being possible, especially with the British authorities actually being willing to listen to the locals and introduce reforms. East Africa was deemed important for strategic reasons, as a base in the Indian Ocean as well as a grounds for a possible future invasion of Italian East Africa. There was also the matter that with East Africa falling out of British grasp, it itself would be a target of possible fascist colonial expansion – in which case all of east Africa would be under fascist influence, from Egypt, through Abyssinia, Kenya and Tanzania, Portuguese East Africa and the Republic of South Africa. Denying the fascist bloc access to those vast resources and territorial continuity was a priority, as Italy, with its brutal methods had shown to be much more capable of holding onto colonial territories than the western powers, restricted by popular opinion and international agreements.

As a result, Britain undertook extensive measures aimed at ridding East Africa of communist sympathizers and the few black nationalist militias which formed as well, believing violence was the only solution to ending colonial rule. Central Africa was given much less attention, allowing violence there to spread. The guerilla tactic of “sanctuary” was thus used against the guerilla fighters themselves, as the militant groups in the east, being herd-pressed by the British would flee to central Africa, where they would either join the fighting there (as internationalists, not being too tied to any territory) or try to harass their original territory – where in turn they would be faced with a regular British army supported by local black auxiliaries, who would make the core of the future East African army, making the war not a guerilla war, but a conventional one where Britain had the upper hand. The movement also went the other way around, with white Africans from central Africa often choosing to move east where it was more secure, local black tribes following. With thing getting worse in central Africa, Britain eventually coming to begin a major withdrawal in 1968, leaving the country to fend for itself.




Taking down of the British flag in Rhodesia for the last time


In East Africa on the other hand, the peaceful decolonization movement was having bright moments. Britain’s tactics at maintaining control and influence over far-away lands was based on the concept of constructing fairly large, federal entities out of them, composed of different colonies, tribes and religions, with a mid-to-strong central government and many smaller local municipalities. This was to assure that anyone who would find themselves in power in the federal government would see “separatist” or “anti-colonial” groups as enemies of the state, against whom they would need aid. Those groups were most often the local tribes, less educated and driven by agitation, but which would still have political power in their own regions. As a result, any federal government would constantly be faced with the “grave danger” of their state’s collapse, something no leader wanted to be accused of or remembered for leading to. Also, as was the case of all politicians, none of them were willing to give up the power they once got over the entire country, even those who would enter politics on the platform of supporting secession. The most obvious ally for them in preventing that was the UK, which rarely refused support. With independence to the states being granted and the leaders being elected, rather than appointed by London, many would lose the will to fight, opting for giving the newly established system a chance. With Britain financing the construction of a lot of schools (often with the aid of missionaries) and basic water and food infrastructure, those territories would be able to enter a path of actual development, rather than constant war.

Thus the period of détente was used by Britain for speeding up the already planned and on-going process, which was in the past delayed either from the fear of using losing the revenue necessary for keeping up in the cold war races, or due to the belief of the colonial territories being unprepared for self-rule. But with the fear that maintaining strong hold over overseas possessions would lead to more problems in the future and the détente offering a chance at reducing spending, those arguments would be gone. Britain would shake off a lot of the burdens maintaining many territories involved, while still being their creditor, having access to their markets and maintaining military bases there. The British Empire was at an end, slowly being replaced by the British Commonwealth of Nations – a suggested organization of quasi-confederal status which was to unite the former realms of the British Empire as a single trading and political bloc, its members being granted official independence and being treated as equals.

The East African Federation declared independence in 1970, the capital of the newly independent state established in Arusha. This was kind of an answer to the fall of the British Central Africa, which collapsed after the British withdrawal from the capital in 1969, taken by the rebel alliance of various African origins just after that. It would be replaced with the Socialist Republic of Central Africa and immediately enter an internal civil war between the various factions making up the former alliance – including the members of the Mau Mau rebellion, which was completely terminated in East Africa by 1970. The East African Federation would be the culmination of a long process of integration of the former colonies which made up parts of it, including a customs union, currency union, common postal service, education system and others. British presence there would be limited to a number of coastal bases of the Royal Navy and Air Force, also including a token force of mechanized infantry (of the strength of 1 – 2 brigades at all times). The federal government would have rather broad powers, allowing it to swiftly deal with opposition to the union, but local municipalities would also have a lot of cultural and civic freedoms as well, including the governments of the member states. The country would have significant conflicts between the central and local governments, the latter protected by the constitution and UK influence, but would also enter a period of quick development, attracting many people from neighboring states. Those would most often be detained or forced back, as the agreements on the freedom of movement within the states of the British Commonwealth would also include restrictions on the immigration into member states. Border control and customs officers from the UK would not be a rare sight on many borders of the EAF.




Map of the East African Federation


The East African Federation would not be the only state established during the détente. Both the islands in the Caribbean and the Western Pacific under British rule would also undergo the process, the British Western Pacific Territories becoming established as the West Pacific Federation and the British West Indies as the West Indies Federation, becoming part of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Both also had their own share of internal difficulties, in a large part due the vast cultural differences between the peoples of the islands, as well as their separation – the inhabitants simply not feeling a sense of unity that would warrant them having to “share” their country with others rather than obtaining full independence, by the right of national self-determination. The collapse of the freshly established countries would in fact be only prevented with a lot of British influence, backstage deals (legal and not) and money meant to keep the entities together. The West Indies Federation would quickly come to abandon its first constitution (after a lengthy debate on whether to even maintain the union, and not seek independence separately) and reform into the Caribbean Confederation, with a very decentralized system by commonwealth standards. Britain’s large fear was that secession of any member from any of the newly existing federations would lead to it also escaping their control, or worse – join up with one of the others blocs. Fascist and communist influence was not unheard of even in such remote areas of the world, and with Britain still being seen as the imperial power willing to force others to do its bidding through strength of arms, protection from it by an alliance with another European (or American) power was seen as a viable solution by many politicians from the post-colonial states, who often had a history of anti-British activity. That would never happen though, despite a lot of German and Russian efforts in gaining the favour of some of them. Germany would be especially active in the Pacific, mostly for sentimental reasons, hoping to regain former colonies as well as believing that bases in far-away parts of the world were signs of strength and prestige by themselves, despite the Reich having no direct interest there.

A major power that drove the decolonization process, even before the détente started after the death of Goring, was the United States of America. The American society had always been opposed to colonial imperialism and held a certain anti-British sentiment, which combined with its distrust to both communism and fascism was one of the main reasons that isolationism remained part of the US foreign policy doctrine. But those times were coming to an end, as with the various blocs in the world forming, excluding the US from their markets, it simply couldn’t be maintained. While some advocated the construction of an “American Bloc” in the spirit of pan-americanism, covering the entire new world, Joseph Kennedy was a strong opponent of such “backyard imperialism”. With the US having good relations with almost all European states, including the UK, the USSR and Germany, he greatly hoped and sought for the US to end its isolationist stance, but not as a power joining any of the other three great power blocs, nor as a competitor with its own, fourth one. Kennedy was open to dialogue with all other powers for the purpose of global peace and security, but did strongly emphasize its attitude towards colonialism and civil liberties, both in talks with the leaders of the world, as well as at home. This was in fact a trick meant to direct the American society towards a specific direction, as it was obvious that neither the fascist nor communist states could give up the practices the USA were so opposed to. As a result, the western powers, the UK, France and the Netherlands were the only ones to answer the call for speeding up decolonization and accepting US aid in the process. This also led the American society to be more acceptant to Kennedy’s policies, as he did exactly what was expected of him – the USA was become the “moral trailblazer”, introducing a new approach to both foreign and internal politics. Political realism had it that while the USA was capable of having good relations and maintain trade ties with all the power blocs, politically it had to align itself in some way with the democratic, western bloc – even if its “social-democratic capitalism” was significantly different to Europe’s more conservative-liberal approach. The “objective demands” of moral nature were meant to prevent accusations of Kennedy arbitrarily associating with the “western imperial powers” (something the far left and far right often brought up) and allow to point out that Britain, France and the Netherlands were in fact the only countries willing to reform under US influence.




Meeting of US and European leaders in 1968 in Ottawa



Of course, Kennedy was not driven by pure noble-mindedness. It was impossible for the USA to exit isolationism without a realistic agenda and in fact realism – the loss of markets and threats of a global world war that might spread to America – was what strongly motivated the anti-isolationists. USA’s requests on decolonization was often met with suspiciousness in both London and Pairs, who saw them as means of undermining their position, while also relatively strengthening that of the USA. Demands on exiting Africa (something of a common call in the USA, due to the black civil rights movements strongly calling for that) were countered by statements and data proving the colonies there to be unprepared for independence, to which in turn the USA responded with offers of material aid for “making them prepared” – aid which was also come at a price of allowing the USA to enter their markets, as well as those of other members of the Commonwealth of Nations and the Francophonie. Since the cold war was an expensive endeavor, neither Britain nor France could really refuse such an opportunity, though would also do what was in their power to maintain their influence in their “empires”.

The détente greatly aided Kennedy, giving the impression of his charisma and strength of character being the driving force of lowering tensions. That he managed to achieve that without the use or even threat of using military force to back any side was admirable, and was proof of the possibility of so called “soft-power” to make a difference in the world. Kennedy would also make an effort to ensure that despite rising US support for the western powers, it would alienate it from the fascists and communists – as he did not want his country to be even a potential target of any conflict. He strongly emphasized that US aid was meant for the “third world”, not the metropolises, and that he was willing to offer the same to them should they accept it together with US conditions – something obviously Italy or the USSR could not do. Nevertheless, economic exchange was on an increase, the détente becoming a period of liberalization in the fascist states, both economic and cultural. The late 1960’s were the period when actual large scale exchange of students would begin to occur, allowing young people to experience the lives in other systems. Tourism between them would also become more common, with the first German “foreign tourist office” known as “Reich Tourism” (operating as a department of the Ministry of Propaganda) would open. Freeing trade with the USA would be what gave to many people the first chance to obtain western products. That America’s opening to the world was a great success would be best proven by its eventual entry to the League of Nations in 1970 –and with the status of permanent security council member, a move not opposed by either the German Reich or the USSR, thanks in a large deal to US financial powers and loans.




The League of Nations would grow in importance with US entry


The Soviet Union felt most uneasy with the sudden change in relations between Germany and the UK. While some considered it a success of Soviet policies, a sign of its efforts against fascism and imperialism forcing the two blocs to desperate cooperation, others viewed it as an obvious failure for the very same reasons – bringing the USSR back to a situation where it had to face an “alliance” significantly more powerful than it itself was. Thus while the initial reaction was aggressive, propaganda calling for even greater unity and sacrifice of the working people of the world to stand up to this menace, it would relatively quickly change, with the USSR being approached by the UK, USA and Germany to join the process of lowering tensions and disarmament. Treaties on banning certain types of weapons, such as the dreaded cluster-chemical warheads and biological agents were signed, even allowing inspectors into the facilities of competing powers. Spendings on conventional weaponry would also be restrained, though they would not be lowered. Multiple agreements on renouncing war and confirming borders were signed, as well as those on the protection of human, racial and minorities rights. The Scandinavian countries would most of the be the hosts of these various talks between the leaders of the three global great powers, most important of which were the Stockholm Accords (Sweden growing to be the most important player in the Scandinavian Union) which formed the International Scandinavian Organization for Human, Racial and Minorities Rights (or ISO for short), a non-governmental organization tasked with overseeing of the implementation of the provisions of the accords (as they did not have the power of an international treaty). The ISO would come to be internationally recognized as an authority in the matter of civic and human rights all around the world, developing many organizations and groups for the protection of all kinds of activities – free journalism, distribution of medication and protection of doctors in the colonial world, protection of civilians in war-torn places and others.

The USSR would come to join the process as it saw it as a useful tool for its agenda, which had somewhat turned from its attention back to activity within Europe itself, rather than only the colonised world. Peace and re-approachment were quintessential to strengthening the leftist movements in Europe, as with the communist parties having lost a great deal of support there, Moscow was out searching for other “useful idiots” to pass its agenda and subvert them. Those included both financial support for various social-democratic and the slowly forming “green parties” with Marxist wings and supporters in them, as well as material support for various terrorist organizations operating in the west – such as the Front Algérie Française which fought an anti-colonial war in metropolitan France against its presence in north Africa, Fronte di Liberazione Naziunale Corsu, fighting for an independent Corsica, Fraction Armée Rouge, a general communist terrorist groups. Similar organizations, which often had formed much earlier than the start of the détente would become more visible, such as the marxist Official Irish Republican Army, fighting both the “normal” fascist IRA and the British, or the Ulster Liberation Army, an anarchist group in Northern Ireland. De-colonization would be common agenda, the process speeding up actually emboldening people to stand up for that cause. Hundreds of people would fall victims to terrorism during the détente, something that would lead many to question its viability.




IRA propaganda, supporting the anti-colonial struggle against zionism


The USSR also had more internal reasons to play along with Germany, the UK and the USA. The country’ economy was in a bad shape, its obsession about the quantity of weaponry and industrial production leading to the usefulness of those weapons and products being ignored, as were the social costs of it. Consumer goods were scarce compared to even the fascist state – having some knowledge as to what life was like west of the border, the soviet people realized that while Poland, Latvia and Estonia (not to mention Finland) were growing richer, they were lagging behind, despite being at more less the same level prior to the Great War. While the Red Army was by many considered to be the most powerful army in Europe (matched only by the Wehrmacht), the fascist states managed to strengthen and grow their armies along with the living conditions of their populations, in a large part thanks to them maintaining in some parts the principles of free trade and enterprise. Nothing of the sort was present in the USSR under either Stalin and Malenkov, the population experiencing very little betterment, especially outside the cities. Russia, which historically had obtained most of its currency and developed goods from European imports was denied that source by the fascist “economic blockade”, which denied it even transport of its goods further west. Its wealth in the form of natural resources was also not worth so much to the western states who for political reason preferred to buy them from their colonies. This made the Soviet Union turn towards the USA as its main economic trade partner, and with the USA making trade policies a tool of foreign policy, the Kremlin saw it as wise to keep close to it. With the American economy booming and requiring an increasing amount of resources, such as oil, metals and natural gas, Russia was eager to supply them and Washington to receive them – though it also sought alternatives to that for itself.

[MarshalBraginsky]

Could the Soviet Union form its own Comecom with the Asian socialist states, like China and maybe Korea?

[forget]

Germeny is finding developing there real economy some what trouble some and having a big bloated red monster lurking in the back ground is giving the leadership some sleepless nights.
Let the space race begin i say, I have a feeling your saving that massive update for later MSZ.
The germans could beat the other powers hands down givin how totally cluesless they are with out the NAZI scientists.

Seriously all rants aside great update MSZ i look forward to more.

[MSZ]

Originally Posted by MarshalBraginsky

Could the Soviet Union form its own Comecom with the Asian socialist states, like China and maybe Korea?

Kind of tricky, since OTL the COMECON was introduced forcefully, and dictators usually don't like giving up power willingly. China is too big to force something like this on it, Vietnam to far away. Korea is the only candidate, and you can safely say that some kind of cooperation between it and the USSR takes place.

Originally Posted by forget

Germeny is finding developing there real economy some what trouble some and having a big bloated red monster lurking in the back ground is giving the leadership some sleepless nights.
Let the space race begin i say, I have a feeling your saving that massive update for later MSZ.
The germans could beat the other powers hands down givin how totally cluesless they are with out the NAZI scientists.

Seriously all rants aside great update MSZ i look forward to more.

The space race already began, with Germany being the first to launch an artificial satellite in 1959. First man in space, and Nazis on the moon will be part of a chapter about detente in Germany, together with Nazi nukes.

The Germans have a great know-how and human capital, greater than the UK or USSR, but have also disadvantages in the form of currency and resources. So they can beat the others, just not "hands down" - others will be close behind.

[MarshalBraginsky]

Are there any other communist states in Asia that might be willing to enter into an economic union with the USSR? About Persia/Iran, are they in a similar situation to Turkey, as in the Shah and the Persian Army may be pro-German, the non-Persian minorities pro-Soviet, and maybe the Crown Prince may be pro-British.

[MSZ]

Originally Posted by MarshalBraginsky

Are there any other communist states in Asia that might be willing to enter into an economic union with the USSR? About Persia/Iran, are they in a similar situation to Turkey, as in the Shah and the Persian Army may be pro-German, the non-Persian minorities pro-Soviet, and maybe the Crown Prince may be pro-British.

Korea is the only one for now. Persia and Afghanistan are potential candidates for that.


Next part is up

Although the term “Commonwealth of Nations” had been in use since the XIXth century, it itself had not developed as an actual international organization until 1931. Even then, the Commonwealth did not truly reform, preserving its status as an institution of very informal nature – compromising the UK and the various dominions, the decisions made by them being the result of the meetings of their heads of states, rather than an actual political process. The decision made at the various conferences were thus necessary to be ratified by the member states, making it a rather uncertain institution, prone to backstage deals and works, away from the public attention, as well as the eyes of the members representatives as well.

This “unequal status” of the various states under British influence was strongly criticized by those nations which did not yet have dominion status, as was the “shady” and “undemocratic” way political decisions affecting the entire commonwealth were made. Pressure on changing that grew with time, especially among the still colonial state, as well as some of the dominions as well – India in particular, as well as for some time South Africa which would eventually withdraw from it. Decolonization brought the matter of reforming the commonwealth to London’s attention, something that had been on its agenda for a considerable period of time – the idea of replacing the current structure of the Commonwealth being in fact a “Council of members Heads of States”, the decisions made by them having de facto the force of international treaties which were signed outside the legislatives branches control, with a more democratic system – introducing a permanent secretariat and civil service, appointing representatives and ambassadors rather than sending prime ministers and most importantly – actually deciding what the goals, prerogatives and powers the Commonwealth ought to have, and where ought they to end. While many in London still clinged to the idea of an “Imperial Federation” and establishing what was the “British Empire” into a single state, that was impossible to achieve due to the ambitions of the various colonial populations. However, maintain a degree of unity between them through the formation of an exclusive international organization with clearly established powers was within the reach of possibility. While the UK saw such a possible development as a means of both keeping the other global great powers away from “it’s backyard”, the independent dominions saw it as a means of economic benefit and access to each other’s markets, while the colonial states saw membership as both a step in the path towards independence, one increasing their own self-determination. The last one had been strongly establishing itself as one of the main principles behind decolonization, one Britain found itself having a hard time defending against – mostly resorting to placing itself as an example of a non-nation state which was still viable, self-determination also meaning the right of nations to transfer the sovereignty from the government to even higher instances.







The delegates to Commonwealth Conference of 1960, Queen Elizabeth II in the middle.


India gaining the status of dominion was a crucial moment, as the country had become a firm supporter of other countries ambitions of achieving the same. The relation between it and the UK was a difficult one, filled with suspiciousness and a lot of symbolism – one of which was the removal of the king of England title of “Emperor of India” as the country officially became a republic in 1960. Subsequently many other british territories meant for independence also sought to establish themselves as republics, severing their ties with the crown, but not necessarily with the UK. Commonwealth conferences became places where many of the nations seeking independence from British rule would present their claims, the existing members debating their validity and level of preparation. This elitist atmosphere was criticized by many opponents of colonialism, though also often treated as a necessity – as it was clear to a lot that achieving independence required a lot of work – those who went through it being less willing to make it easier to others, even preferring to keep colonial institutions alive for some time longer just to benefit out of them. The situation could not however go on ad infinitum, as with the various colonial states making actual and real progress, halting their march was impossible. The relaxation of the cold war and USA pressure on hastening the process made the commonwealth increasingly more important, as it was a convenient institution for debating the matters of global security, something America was most interested in. However Washington was also not in favour of “secret diplomacy” which had been a standard part of internal commonwealth affairs, becoming another strong voice calling for reformation and organization into working structures.

This process was strongly tied with the decolonization of various areas, as those pursuing independence were expected to join the Commonwealth in the future – they were thus allowed to at least in some part participate in its “second founding”. The eventual results of this tedious and long work came in 1971 with the signing of the Treaty of Delhi, which greatly reformed the commonwealth into the British Commonwealth of Nations – a unique construct of an international organization, however, with many characteristics of a de facto confederal entity.



Arrival of the British monarch Queen Elizabeth II to India 1961, for the signing of the Treaty of Delhi.


Although opposition was raised to maintaining the term “British” in the organizations name, the word was kept, as it was no longer identified with the “Britsh Isles”, implying Anglo-Saxon oligarchy, but being “British” was meant as a “state of the mind”, a social construct with people holding the same sentiment towards as they would towards their nationality. What “being British” actually meant was described and explained in many ways, from a simple “association with the Commonwealth” to more complex mental constructs of a people holding similar views on human rights, personal freedoms, entrepreneurship and the will to better oneself. The goals of the commonwealth were described very generally, in terms such as “world peace” “prosperity and security”, “freedom and equality”, etc.

The BCoN unique status came from the fact that while officially it retained its status as a international organization, with every member having the right to leave, it also had many of the characteristics of an actual state. Those involved the existence of a Commonwealth Court, to resolve issues between members, a “legislative branch”, made out of representatives appointed by the parliaments of member states (known as the “Representatives Committee” ) tasked with the creation of new laws within the BCoN jurisdiction (which involved all types of matters, such as trade, security, police, marine law, culture, sports, etc.), which still however would still have to be accepted by the national legislations. A “Commonwealth Police” was founded, as the “freedom of movement” between the member states was established – transport across the globe made increasingly easy with the many developments in naval engineering and flight, all the capitals and major cities of the member states having functional airports. The BCoN would go as far as to join many international organization by itself, either as member of its own, or at least as an observer – like it did within the League of Nations. Common consular services were also established, initially with the citizen of any member state allowed to seek protection within the consulates of any other, later with such offices being established separately, some countries going so far as giving up their own national ones in favour of the BCoN ones. While the “Permanent Secretariat” of the BCoN was located in London, the seat of the “Representatives Committee” was located in Ottawa – the offices of many other BCoN agencies and institutes being located all around the world, for example the prestigious being located in Mumbai.
Commonwealth Maritime Council



The building of the Commonwealth Maritime Councilin Mumbai, BCoN flag waving atop.


But the most important aspect of the BCoN was the establishment of an actual military force at its disposal, responsible only to it, rather than to any independent nation state. The “Armed Forces of the British Commonwealth of Nations” was not meant as an actual army, but rather a “peacekeeping formation”, devoid of heavy equipment and meant for anti-partisan activity, establishing of “military administration” in dangerous areas of the member states territories, general military support for police formations, when those were incapable of handling things on their own, and other “non-standard” activities requiring the use of military units, rather than civilian ones. These units were also meant to serve as a reserve force for the armies of the member states, their various brigades and division being nominally under the authority of the general staffs of the member states, but their use being dependent on consent of the BCoN.

The idea of the BCoN Armed Forces was for it to be a professional formation, fighting insurgents, conducting border patrols, providing relief during natural disasters, aid for riot police and such others. It was also meant to be used in case of military interventions in other countries – while moving in national armies onto foreign soil was considered an act of war, the same was not certain for the armed forces of what was nominally an international organization. Such an international force was also thought to have much more legitimacy in its actions, as it did not work under any national authority – the responsibility for them being shared by the member states. While the presence of UK army units in places like Somaliland was seen as a sign of colonialism, the same people serving in the uniforms of the BCoN with their comrades coming from all across the world were much harder to be called “colonialists”. The BCoN even offered that they potentially be used by the LoN in case of necessity, despite not being a full member. But the professionalism of these units left a lot to be desired. Being an all-volunteer force with much less prestige than the regular armies (and lower salaries, members preferring to finance their own national militaries), they would often be called “weekend soldiers” and looked down upon from regular servicemen. Those with a true willingness to serve would almost always prefer to serve in the national armies, leaving the BCoN AF with those seeking to avoid draft (as service there exempted from duty), various NCO’s and officers who would land there after being “promoted upwards” rather than discharged, or old veterans and officers who would be sent there to live their “retirement” there, rather in a civilian life. It wasn’t unusual for many of those serving in armies to actually volunteer for BCoN AF for the purpose of using it to benefit their “civilian” life – old UK officers willing to live out their life in exotic places like India or Kenya while not feeling useless out of uniform; or officers from the post-colonial states using them as a means of being deployed in places like the UK or Canada and move there together with their families, giving them the opportunity for better work or education. Nevertheless, the BCoN wasn’t completely useless, and would participate in occasional conflicts, as well as be a strong motivator for keeping and developing a “common security policy” for the BCoN members, as well as keeping it as a viable military alliance – despite the geopolitics of the members not providing it with natural “common enemies”.




BCoN “Peacekeepers” in East Africa. Blue headgear would become a symbol of the “peacekeeping forces”.

Ironically, the BCoN AF saw most action in the country which was among those less favourable for its creation – India. Since gaining dominion status in 1950 and becoming a republic in 1960, India had significant difficulties in keeping peace and unity of the country, having to deal with various groups dissatisfied with the state, or even actively seeking secession. Separatists supporting that (or at least demanding greater autonomy) were present in the north-western provinces of Pakistan, eastern fringes of Burma and the island of Ceylon (known as the Tamil insurgents). Other groups were also present within the “India proper”, motivated not only by things like nationality or religion, but simple economics or politics as well. With fascist-sponsored Arab nationalism on the rise in the middle east, it’s strong secularism pushing many of the more conservative islamists out of active politics in the region, or even out of the countries entirely, Islamic Communism, supported by the USSR as a tool of fighting the nationalist trends in the post-colonial world was on the rise, particularly in southern Asia – Persia, Afghanistan, the Soviet central Asian SSR, and Indian Pakistan as well. Communist philosophy, together with religious zeal of many “migrant fighters” from the Arab world and the still-strong opposition to the government in Delhi, seen as a continuation of a British colonial regime created a deadly combination, which would lead to growing amounts of violence. Frustration with these “unruly, fringe provinces” in turned made Delhi reluctant to accept groups from that area into the democratic political process and somewhat “abandoned” them, concentrating on the development and well-being of the peaceful areas – this coming from the belief that cutting the off from funds and power would “teach them a lesson”- but only brought more frustration from the younger populations who would thus not be able to benefit from independence, not seeing any difference between their situation and their parents, thus in their eyes justifying the view of India being a colonial-imperial power itself, a communist-islamic revolution being the only way to make a difference, as democratic political processes could not.

This would lead to the “Pakistan Emergency” or “Pakistani War” which started in 1968 after the “flood of the century”, which caused significant damage to the north-western Indian provinces, populated by Pakistani muslims. The humanitarian crisis following the natural disaster was very badly mismanaged, many areas being devoid of any aid causing famine and disease to spread. Camps for the people who lost everything were constructed all across the country, breaking families, supplies provided for relief being unfairly divided and other corrupt activities taking place. The worst of it occurred in the province of Kashmir, over which conflicts had occurred in the past. The region, being majorly muslim-populated was nonetheless ruled by a hindu governor, Karan Singh – he son of Hari Singh, the last Maharaja of Kashmir. Local politics led to the former royal family to retain, and even expand its influence in the region through commercial means (businesses created from family wealth) as well as many political connections. The structure of India’s administrative division gave much more power to the centrally-appointed governors than any local structures, causing a strong anti-Singh and anti-Hindu sentiment among the Kashmir population. The disastrous flood only worsened the situation, the governmental powers and the “Singh Empire” being blamed for the difficulties. Accusation of relief being hoarded and only provided to the local Hindu majority led to many violent attacks on it, the worst occurring in February 1969 when a Hindu refugee camp was raided by armed muslim militias, leading to 23 casualties and the camps supplies being stolen, granted to the local muslim population. This event was what eventually brought the government to declare martial law in the province in addition to the already existing state of emergency. Riots sprang out almost immediately, also spreading to other muslim-populated regions, attacks against police stations, military posts, raids against trains carrying goods becoming rampant. The “Pakistani Liberation Army” was founded during the violence, initially independently as various groups of different background, which would only later unite under Soviet patronage – the USSR providing it with military supplies through Afghanistan. The entire Pakistan region would thus become a large “war-zone” for well over a decade, Indian Army units fighting various terrorists, or even regular trained military groups. Casualties would amount to over a million during the entire decade of the seventies, mostly civilian, which also led to the devastation of the entire Pakistan region.




Indian soldiers on patrol in Kashmir.



The war in Pakistan was a powerful force of motivation for the communist movement, attracting many muslims, colonial wars veterans, mercenaries or simple adventurers. The conflict was impossible to be stopped from spreading and would eventually “spill” into Afghanistan itself. With the many fighters involved in the war treating Afghanistan as a “safe haven” (regardless of the interests and policies of the king), many of them considered fighting against the Afghan monarchy as a goal of equal value. The country, left for itself and internationally isolated for decades was hardly a “functional state” by modern standards and could not resist the communist force – especially with the communist movement there being quite strong even before, the king of Afghanistan being incapable of resisting the many Soviet pressures. This amounted to the Aqrab Revolution in October 1972, when after being invited to London to talk on the matter of Afghan actions in regard to the war in Pakistan, the government of Mohammed Zahir Shah collapsed due to a coup staged by the Islamo-Communist coalition, supported by the alliance of many Afghan tribes. The monarchy was abolished, replaced by the People’s Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. With the long border between Afghanistan and India being extremely difficult to control, the war in Pakistan grew in intensity, action against the newly founded Afghan state being impossible due to strong Soviet support for the state, which also made significant progress in legitimising the coupists regime.

The war was thus a test of unity for the BCoN – a test it did not fail. Although India was hesitant towards allowing the new Commonwealth military formation to participate, as well as any other member state involving itself in this “internal Indian matter”, it would eventually accept it, with many benefits for its side. Australian troops, accustomed to rough terrain, veterans of the conflicts in Africa, knowledgeable about wars of attrition, UK-trained and equipped commando units – all of them would play a part in the war. Gurkha brigades were particularly effective and decorated through the war, which would not only remain within India’s borders – raids against various camps and “sanctuaries” hidden in the Afghan mountain ranges weren’t exactly rare, and Britain did not hesitate in using its entire arsenal to achieve victory – “smart” missiles, attack helicopters, new types of radio-guided artillery batteries – all types of new inventions and weapons of war saw their use in the conflict. The armed forces of the BCoN were mostly used to unburden the national armed forces from the non-combat activities, such as humanitarian aid and re-creating local administration, but with terror attacks against cities, away from what passed as “front lines” they would also see a fair share of fighting.




Indian soldiersof the British Commonwealth of Nations Armed Forces.


National propaganda strongly emphasised the necessity of maintaining state unity, effectively marginalizing any opposition towards continuing the war, including any political supporters the separatist might have had – any many did in fact suggest that dividing India along ethnic lines could end the violence, pointing out that the Hindu themselves got their independence thanks to the right of nations for self-determination – and thus they also owed to other nations currently under their rule. But curiously, relatively little emphasis was placed on the islamo-communist character of the rebels, India fearing the conflict officially becoming an “anti-communist” struggle, which would cause much greater pressure on it from the USSR and the other troublesome communist moloch – China. While Mao was the unquestionable leader of the PRC, his paranoia had significantly grown over the year since his rise to power, the result of continuous failures of both his internal and foreign policies – loss of Manchuria, failure to subdue Korea, defeat in the Taiwan Strait Crisis – all had significantly affected him, leading to his belief that his position was constantly being threatened to which he responded with periodical purges. His internal policies on economic and social development, such as the “Great Leap Forward” and the “Cultural Revolution” also resulted in spectacular damage being caused to the country, rather than benefits. Even in Indochina, where his support for the Viet Minh would eventually lead them to power turned out to be a bitter victory, as Indochina remained very suspicious of China and its attempts at domination, preventing it’s “puppetization”. To these setbacks, Mao answered with blaming his political environment and sought to turn away public attention from it by involving the society in yet other “grand projects”. Mao never abandoned his ambitions of establishing China as the supreme power in Asia and of the de-colonization movement on that continent, supporting various communist movements and brigands in Indonesia, Malaya, Thailand – and in India, especially Burma, but also Bhutan and Nepal. China had in fact its own, direct border conflict with India regarding the demarcation of the border in the Himalayan mountains. Occasional skirmishes in those areas began in 1960, when there were high hopes in Beijing that India’s proclamation of a republic will be followed by it severing its ties with Britain and UK withdrawal. That did not happen and in fact, fear of China’s actions was a powerful motivator for Delhi to keep Britain close as an ally – especially since the UK had it’s own concerns regarding China’s intentions towards Hong Kong.

Maoist militias would appear and disappear in Burma, Nepal and Bhutan, where Indian Army units would be busy fighting them. But the largest conflict between India in China would only occur in 1969, when India’s attention went completely towards Pakistan, causing many of the units in the north of the country to be moved west. Mao sensed the opportunity and launched a double attack on India in the disputed territories of the Chip Chap valley in Aksai Chin, as well as around the Namka Chu river. After a few days of fighting China succeeded in capturing most of the disputed territory and threatening Nepal. But the Chinese peace proposal, offering a negotiated settlement of the boundary after mutual withdrawal from the contested territory and further was turned down by India due to British insistence, and offer of aid. London’s concerns were, that with the détente in Europe causing tensions to lower and decolonization to speed up, this would not cause the UK to be seen as weak and easier to pressure – as to that it would have to answer with more armament, breaking the ”gentleman’s agreements” with Germany. UK’s stalwart position also was motivated by the fact that Berlin actually supported India in its conflicts against China, stating it to be the “bastion of anti-communism in Asia” and choosing not to use the crisis there for its own advantage. Also Moscow wasn’t overjoyed by Mao’s actions, not wanting him to succeed in any way in strengthening his position Asia – a failure against India being a convenient way of showing him that China could not achieve anything in Asia without Soviet support. Moscow thus stayed on the position of the conflict there being a “Chinese – Indian matter” to which it would not interfere, allowing the UK to aid India without fear.




Indian soldiers fighting the Chinese


After the one week Chinese campaign in India between 20 - 27 October 1969 and India’s refusal to China’s offer, preparation for a counter-offensive began on both sides. British Army in India units were mobilised and moved to the north, as were other auxiliary units and the RAF. On November the 5th 1969 the Indian counter attack began, breaking through the hastily fortified and enforced Chinese positions. The attack was preceded by an effective diversion operation, knocking out Chinese communication lines and scrambling radio contact, effectively cutting off great part of the over 100.000 PLA force from their command. This allowed the combined Indian – British force to encircle a great part of the Chinese army and capturing it. After only 5 days, the Indian Army stood back at the pre-conflict Sino-Indian border, having captured around 50.000 chinese troops. About 1000 Indian and 2000 Chinese soldiers were killed in the conflict, which technically didn’t end – India’s request to China with an analogous text to the one sent by Beijing on peace settlement would also be refused, but with no action on either side taking place further, a “return to status quo ante” situation was achieved. Chinese and Indian relations would remain strained after this Chinese defeat, returning to his practice of arming partisans and militias, as well as seeking to strengthen his position in Nepal and Bhutan. The failure led to yet another purge in China, mostly of officers, blamed for it.

But despite the various successes the British Commonwealth of Nations achieved, both before its official “second foundation” and after, not all of those who have been under British imperium in the past sought to continue the relation. Many of the former states of the British Empire sought their own way in the world, both before the signing of the Treaty of Delhi and after. From the various possessions in the arab world, only the Emirate of Kuwait remained a part of the BCoN, the Emir Sabah III Al-Salim Al-Sabah being an opponent of arab nationalism which raged throughout the middle east, fearing its rise in Kuwait would threaten his position and wealth. Kuwait remained faithful to Britain during the Suez Crisis when despite public support for Egypt, action against the British were not taken. Following that, and during lengthy negotiations on Kuwait’s status within the BCoN (before it was known it would even participate) the status of Kuwait’s oil industry, owned by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was amended, the oil industry in Kuwait nationalized into the Kuwait Oil Company. The country would thus become one of the major providers of crude oil to the UK and other commonwealth states giving it immense revenue – something that motivated it to maintaining its ties with Britain. Social reforms were conducted to answer the demands of the population, the country being able to lower the pressure from nationalists and preserve the royal family’s position. However with the threat of a possible coup, as well as rising irredentist sentiments among other arab states, particularly Iraq, Kuwait would also allow for British (and later Commonwealth) troops to remain on its soil. Anti-British sentiment would come to pass over time, though still remain a powerful tool among populists and radicals. Same could not be said elsewhere, as Britain was forced to withdraw from everywhere else on the Arab Peninsula – The UAE, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Quatar – all would severe their ties with the British believing their oil wealth was sufficient for maintaining power and prosperity without any British strings attached. The only exception was Israel, which was the only country to plead to join the commonwealth, going as far as introducing Elizabeth II as the Queen of Israel. The offer was rejected by Britain which saw it as too much of a commitment, the BCoN being also a de facto military alliance, and there were considerable fears that Tel Aviv could use that in ways that went against British interest, which were mostly about maintaining peace and stability in the region, something Israel’s mere existence upset.




Queen Elizabeth II and Emir Sabah III Al-Salim Al-Sabah.


North Borneo would also be lost as a result of the general process of decolonization in the East Indies, but not Brunei – the country had initially refused participation but would join in 1977. Malaya would remain outside the Commonwealth, as pressure from nationalists and local fascist, fearing communist expansion was too strong to ignore. In turn, the Guatemalan territorial claim to British Honduras was what motivated the colony to preserve the links with the Commonwealth, around 2000 UK troops being stationed there, later replaced with BCoN armed forces. The country was given full independence in 1970 and became something of a sour point in British – American relations, as the USA strongly supported full British withdrawal from the American continent, trying to broker a settlement between the new country of Belize and Guatemala, but was incapable of mediating one. The UK would find itself under significant criticism in the future, when a scandal would break out that UK intelligence would actually provide support for many Guatemalan politicians who spoke loudly about their country’s claims, so as to artificially create a sense of insecurity in Belize. Many of the UK’s crown colonies would also lose that status, replaced by “UK dependent Territory” through the “Nationality Act” of 1971, amending the citizenship status of their inhabitants as well as the relation of the territories with the UK and the crown as well, giving them greater self-governance, such as the Falklands, and various other small islands on the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.

In Africa, the great majority of the territories once under the rule of the British Empire would also go a different path. After South Africa’s withdrawal, the surrender of Sudan to Egypt and withdrawal from Central Africa, the UK’s possessions on the dark continent lowered significantly. Stuck between a quasi-fascist apartheid country in the south and an afro-communist regime in the north, Botswana had become a relative island of stability which attracted many of the educated blacks, who witnessing the developments in Africa, became the leaders of the “Black Nationalism” movement, centred in Botswana. The rift between it and the UK grew with time, as the local leaders of the state took actions which were often very unpopular in London, aimed at terminating any local “tribal” identities and establishing a “lack” or “Botswanian” one. Reforms there drew heavily from fascist ideology, together with the pursuit of “basic self-sufficiency”, “independence through military strength” and others. Relations with the UK fluctuated between mildly chilly and regular, depending on many factors, but both in Botswana and the various commonwealth states opposition to its membership was large enough for it not to happen – though the door to it was never close and many UK, Commonwealth and Botswanian officials enjoyed quite good personal relations, being able to solve many disputes in a friendly atmosphere.




Serset Khama, first President of Botswana and strong supporter of the black nationalism movement.


Nigeria too would not participate in the Commonwealth, despite early prognosis suggesting otherwise. The 60’s saw an increase of national sentiments in Nigeria, generally among Nigeria's dominant ethnic groups: the Hausa ('Northerners'), Igbo ('Easterners') and Yoruba ('Westerners'). Political and ethnic differences between them were strong, as was their resolve to end colonial rule. Having “awakened” relatively late (the size of the political movements of the ethnic groups being relatively low compared to their population), the UK already had a general understanding on how affairs in the colony would develop, choosing not to suppress the rising strength of these nationalisms, but answering their demands with increased self-rule and creating federal structures for their country. Nigeria was expected to become something akin to the East African Federation, the significantly less violent nature of the locals political groups being taken as a good sign. However, that also meant that London had placed less interests and resources into their development – calmness indicating a lack of need to do it. US pressure for decolonization and the belief the established ruling elites were ready for the task of ruling themselves led to the Federal Republic of Nigeria being granted independence in 1971, few days before the signing of the Treaty of Delhi.




Celebrations of Nigerian independence in Lagos


But the calmness was in fact the calm before the storm. The national movements, being relatively weak in numbers, made them in fact detached from the peoples they supposedly represented and dominated by self-styled ideologist and “professional politicians”, who were motivated by the pursuit of power and not held back by any restraints from “the masses” which were mostly apathetic to the changes occurring around them. Without actual state institutions to which the people would feel a connection and loyalty to, the people would simply ignore them, or decide to follow the leaders - the “idol” being put above the “ideal”. As a result, with the withdrawal of the colonial administration, the only institution to truly function and be “state ” one, rather than “tribal” one, was the Nigerian Army which became a tool of the federal government dominated after the first elections by the Islamic Hausa people. With the freshly formed country still lacking a great deal of basic legislation an democratic state traditions, the new leadership began to introduce new laws, loosely based on Sharia law and Islamic traditions, something the southern Christians felt uncomfortable with. In 1974, the leadership of the Igbo would eventually come to declare secession from the country, as the independent Republic of Biafara. This was done unilaterally and was followed by a coup against the local federal powers, putting Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu in power. Many of the Igbo military would choose to support the independence of the republic, causing the start of the Nigerian Civil War, which lasted for 3 years, until Biafara’s complete collapse. Violence during the war, unwillingness by the Nigerian government to begin any talks or negotiating a truce and the almost immediate declaration of martial law and suspension of constitutional and civil rights caused outrage and opened the way for replacing the elected government with a military dictatorship – which occurred after rigged elections in 1976. In 1977, with the civil war having ended and almost three million having been killed in it, Nigeria nationalized its oil industry, causing outrage in London which had been supporting Lagos from the beginning of the hostilities.

Britain, the former coloniser of Nigeria and its main supplier of arms, could not escape involvement in the erupted conflict. The decisions on the policies introduced in regard to Nigeria was not based on arguments for or against secession, or on the interests of its people, but on backing the likely winner. As one Commonwealth Office briefing document to the prime minister put it: "The sole immediate British interest is to bring the [Nigerian] economy back to a condition in which our substantial trade and investment can be further developed." The UK, and the BCoN, in fact faced the choice between supporting the separatists, who also were the ones to de facto control the Nigerian oil fields, the country’s main natural wealth, or the federal government. Britain feared that allowing for secession would “encourage the formation of the principle of tribal secession” as well as hoped that a quick federal victory would allow it to maintain its economic rights and interests. But victory wasn’t quick and the war had almost completely destroyed the democratic institutions the de-colonization process had established. By the end of the war, Yakubu Gowon had become the undisputed leader of the country which remained a “federation” in name only. While friendly towards Britain and grateful for its support, he did not however wish to share his power and country’s wealth, declaring many branches of the Nigerian economy to be “off-limits” for foreign capital, which strongly affected the UK. He would also withdraw the country from the BCoN, as a result of his military rule which he did not intend to lift. Talks about an intervention in Nigeria would come up in London and Ottawa, or taking other action to “remedy” the situation, which were only stopped by Gowon’s bold initiative to begin talks on “compensations” for the losses incurred by the war and nationalization. Knowing well that he could not stand up to Britain’s military might, as well as that there were plenty who would be glad to see him removed from power, Gowon suggested establishing a new deal between Nigeria and the countries of the BCoN. This met with acceptance, which allowed Gowson to maintain leadership of the country, giving the various BCoN’s member states exclusive rights to oil trading, together with the national Nigerian Oil Company, their companies being compensated in various ways, but Nigeria itself would be kept away from the BCoN, officially on the basis of it not fulfilling the requirements of being “democratic” enough – unofficially, the military junta would quickly become dependent on the BCoN, which would strongly enforce its exclusive rights to harvesting Nigerian resources, disallowing other parties from doing the same, with the “Damocles sword” of the Royal Navy hanging over it, being the one to control the Atlantic ocean and thus shipping from the country.


By the time the BCoN was established, the United Kingdom thus held colonial power over only a fraction of its former empire. The colonies of the Gold Coast and Togoland, which had been places of relatively intense anti-colonial struggles, heavily supported by the USSR, were in a state of almost constant emergency, Britain being unable to put the rebellions there down like it did in other parts of the world, or find willing collaborators with which to work – but also being unwilling to leave, stating its LoN obligations as reasons for staying. In Somaliland, maintaining presence with heavy military personnel came from geography – London strongly believed that withdrawal would immediately trigger an Italian response, even an invasion. Thus the military character of UK rule there was the reason for much of the hostilities with the locals. Sierra Leone and the Gambia would too have to wait for independence to be reached, as British interests there went towards establishing them not as independent states, but integrating them as dependent territories – the status they achieved in 1971 with the passing of the “Nationality Act” in 1971.




The British Commonwealth of Nations on its foundation in 1971.

[omi]

nice update again but why did India become a republic the princes and london would have opposed that as a Nigerian i cannot help but wonder why war would break out so soon after Independence with greater British influence as because the Hausa and igbos e.g ojukwu were strong anglophiles and why did we become a republic even in otl during decolonization after independence we still remained a monarchy for some time and i think it should be longer not sure due to greater British influence and as
also otl British Cameroons would be integrated with nigeria therby butterflying away the entire civil war .what is the fate of la francophie. and again gowon program was not socialist it was a form of dirgisme trying to introduce more indigneious people into the economy not going to raise that much of a problem thank you it been a great tl

[galileo-034]

Speaking of relations between China and Indochina, it would surely not be a love story, especially with Vietnam, given Ho Chi Minh once said: 'I prefer to sniff French shit for five years than to eat Chinese shit for the rest of my life'. In fact, the traditional chinese-vietnamese enmity is the product of a long history of Chinese domination over the region. Vietnam is more likely to ally with the Soviets than with China after independence.

[forget]

Is Germany interested in developing the Nuclear programs of far away allies like South Africa? Its really the only way to protect them from allied aggression and dismissive attitude towards sovereignty.

[MSZ]

Originally Posted by omi

nice update again but why did India become a republic the princes and london would have opposed that as a Nigerian i cannot help but wonder why war would break out so soon after Independence with greater British influence as because the Hausa and igbos e.g ojukwu were strong anglophiles and why did we become a republic even in otl during decolonization after independence we still remained a monarchy for some time and i think it should be longer not sure due to greater British influence and as
also otl British Cameroons would be integrated with nigeria therby butterflying away the entire civil war .what is the fate of la francophie. and again gowon program was not socialist it was a form of dirgisme trying to introduce more indigneious people into the economy not going to raise that much of a problem thank you it been a great tl

Post-colonial states usually terminate the vestiges of the former regimes to cut off "bad memories" of being ruled by others. The fact that OTL Elizabeth II remains Queen of so many countries is quite unusual (no such thing happened in Zair or Indonesia). Declaring a Republic is just a symbolic means to remove any trace of "India serving the UK". Just something a lot of people expect.

The idea of "right of nations to self determination" is a stronger principle ITTL than in OTL, something the UK doesn't like and act strongly against (with success). Longer British presence in Nigeria means a stronger "national sentiment" developing, and lets face it - not everyone would be happy with independence being achieved by reaching an agreement with Britain, rather than having it fought and won in battle.

British Cameroon remains a LoN mandate still. Decolonization can't happen all at once, it might be divided as OTL, or it might go all to Nigeria, or even become independent as well.

Originally Posted by galileo-034

Speaking of relations between China and Indochina, it would surely not be a love story, especially with Vietnam, given Ho Chi Minh once said: 'I prefer to sniff French shit for five years than to eat Chinese shit for the rest of my life'. In fact, the traditional chinese-vietnamese enmity is the product of a long history of Chinese domination over the region. Vietnam is more likely to ally with the Soviets than with China after independence.

Yeah, I know that. Hence why I'm not making some super pan-communist organization to span them all, China was always vary of Soviet influence, and Vietnam of Chinese influence. This doesn't change ITTL.

Originally Posted by forget

Is Germany interested in developing the Nuclear programs of far away allies like South Africa? Its really the only way to protect them from allied aggression and dismissive attitude towards sovereignty.

It is, though for know its advanced thermobaric warheads that are the dread of the world, as well as cluster chemical bombs. Germany has a blue-water navy to defend its allies across the globe, but "allied aggression" is unlikely to come - even if Germany wouldn't be able to strike in Africa, itcan strike very hard in Europe against them.



OK, next part is up.



The French Fourth Republic had inherited a great number of the problems its predecessor couldn’t solve. Problems with competitiveness on global markets, outdated militaries, loss of global influence and the on-going colonial conflicts in Africa were all issues that would have to be dealt with by the new leadership, which thankfully now had more tools and freedoms at its disposal with the introduction of a stronger executive branch under the president, as well as the elimination of the communists and fascists from the legislative. The detente had been a blessing for France, which quickly came to urge the UK to support it, hoping that a relaxation of relations with Germany would buy it time (and save the money) for solving its internal difficulties. Paris came very close to London, making sure that any deals between the Reich and the United Kingdom would include France as well, that it would not be left to fend for itself - a fear still present among many politicians, that their country might be sacrificed to ensure the “safety” of the British Isles. With Hanke ascending to power in Germany, France would reach out to him for guarantees of maintain peace, the French leaders feeling more confident with having been given ‘personal’ guarantees from German chancellors, than relying on those given by the former one. Thus once again, the Germany had come to guarantee the Franco-German border, like it did under Hitler and Goring. This was a part of the extremely important talks between the three global great powers (together with a number of smaller ones, like France and Italy) on the signing of the Conventional Arms Reduction Treaty (CART), which as the name suggested, was to reduce armaments. The initiative, started with a general meeting in Stockholm in 1968 and finalize with the signing of the CART in 1970 – an important step in easing global relations, as in the eyes of the French, it would stop the gap between the strength of the French and German armed forces from growing.

The cooperation of the two militaries had been steadily growing with time and involving not only all the branches of military, but their defence industries and R&D programs as well. France and the UK would come to standardise a lot of its equipment, ranging from simple rifle projectiles calibres, through artillery shells, fuels, even aircraft missiles and their systems. Cooperation in development would include the most sophisticated projects, like the developments of rockets and ballistic missiles – the geopolitics of the world making the two countries join their programs and divide them, with France developing short and mid-range missiles, the UK concentrating on long and intercontinental ones. French “Roland” missiles would quickly be adopted as the standard SAM for the two countries and part of their air defence systems, while British long range Blue Streak missiles would become the basic component of their deterrence policies. One of the more important developments of the CART involved the matter of permanent stationing of British troops on French soil, that including also rocket units and air forces. British army personnel had been present in France since the 40’s, as part of a general cooperation and exchange program, the two countries having a general agreement about mutual security, that France was to maintain a powerful land army, able to halt or slow down any German advance into western Europe (or take offensive action into German territory), while the UK was to be the one responsible for air and sea supremacy, the RAF and Royal Navy protecting the North Sea and the French skies from threats in case of war. As French security relied on having a strong land army while UK security on having a powerful fleet and air force, this deal suited both sides fine, but with the German war machine growing in force, the weaknesses of such a “near dichotomy” (as naturally, both the UK had significant land forces and France a fleet and air force of their own) were beginning to show – while Britain was able to perfectly defend itself, France was still dependent on Britain, as in a modern war, the land army dramatically needed air support, and the German Luftwaffe was by far superior to any planes France might have sent. The arrangement, while uncomfortable for France, was good for the UK, as it ensured that even with guarantees, France would not ever take action against any of the axis states unilaterally. Germany too would realise that and made a significant diplomatic effort to keep things as they were – making sure that war in the west could only occur with France and Britain reaching single-mindedness, something that wasn’t easy to achieve.



The Suez crisis was one of the times UK and French forces fought side by side, despite the two countries having different policies.

This led to a rather large diplomatic conflict between Germany and France, first in 1955 and later in 1963. Both of them involved the matter of placing British troops in France, something Paris considered as essential to its security policy. In 1955, an agreement was to be reached about the presence of the No 138 Expeditionary Air Wing of RAF bombers in France. Germany quickly reacted to that proposal and protested against it, threatening “adequate response”, such as deployment of Luftwaffe bomber groups in Helgioland and Sicily, pressing Britain into abandoning the plans. Another such plan was made in 1963, known as the “Blue Streak crisis”, when a confidential agreement between Paris and London led to a number of the Blue Streak missile systems – which were very mobile and easy to conceal, while having a range long enough to attack targets as far as east Germany – being leased to France. This was an alteration of the balance of power in western Europe significant enough to cause an outraged reaction of the Reich, who demanded that Britain cancel the deal. With London once again realizing the potential complications of such a move (specifically the possibility of Germany deploying similar advanced weapon systems to its allies across the world, like Taiwan, Egypt, Iraq or Guatemala and Argentina) it sought to annul the lease, but was met with French refusal, who would eventually decide to unilaterally cancel the lease and pay compensation to London, rather than lose the advantage the Blue Streak gave them. The diplomatic crisis was eventually resolved according to UK’s wishes and the missiles being returned, but once again marked it that Germany was not willing to accept the militarization of France going too far.

Goring’s death and the détente changed that approach, something that was quickly spotted by many observers of Hanke’s visit to London, but what was not initially realized to be sincere. Saying that Germany had no plans or interests in going to war against either France or the UK, and thus saw no reason for the two countries to use their militaries and make deals about them as they saw fit, the German approach towards stationing British troops in France was turned around – Berlin would no longer protest against France harbouring even the British expeditionary forces, silently saying that since neither France nor the UK planned war with the axis powers, they too would be allowed to do the same – basically, accepting the occupation of the Balkan states of Germany and possible future expansion of German military presence in central Europe. France jumped at the opportunity, which corresponded perfectly with its policy of “professionalization” of its armed forces by abolishing draft and exchanging the massive amounts of obsolete equipment with much less modern ones – the power of modern armies lying not in pure manpower, but mobility and firepower, the latter being able to be achieved with quality rather than quantity. French armoured units would thus begin to use completely new weapons of war, such as the AMX-30 battle tanks – significantly lighter and faster than their German or British counterparts, with more advanced targeting and autoloading systems (made possible thanks to specifications, that expected combat was to take place at relatively shorter distances than what German and British military experts suggested). Since the period of transformation from a conscript to professional army was expected to leave France more vulnerable for a time, the acceptance of British troops allowed for that temporary weakness to be masked, while leaving France with a long-term strategic advantage. First soldiers of the 21st Army Group (France), who would eventually mount up to 15.000 would arrive in 1972. The process of “professionalization” would be declared finished in 1976.



Headquarters of the 21st Army Group of the United Kingdom in France

The IV Republic’s economic policy was characterized by a large degree of liberalization, with taxes, customs, tolls, restrictions and concessions being significantly reduced. Gastin’s presidency would be a time in which the proverbial “French bureaucracy” would be fought against, and while attempts at reducing it were unsuccessful, neither did it grow. France would abandon the policy common to all imperial states of “colonial preference”, replacing it with a full free-market one, signing deals on freeing trade and lowering barriers with both its direct neighbours (including Germany), but also extending abroad, to the many countries of the Americas. Opening up to foreigners also attracted foreign investors, lowering unemployment. While economic liberalism would be the general policy, France would not hesitate to take protectionist actions as well, especially in industry. With the Great Depression and subsequent decades being a time which has hit hardly the French industry, many of its traditionally small industrial workshops had gone bankrupt or otherwise fallen on hard times. While this had enlarged unemployment, it also created a ground for expansion for the French large businesses and conglomerates, which also had suffered from many governmental policies in the form of high taxes, minimal wages, lowered working hours and others. The populist policies of the past social governments were gradually repealed, including the re-introduction of a personal and corporate flat tax and abandoning the revaluation of many benefits – making them with time less of a strain for the state budget. The “alliance of the state and enterprises” allowed for the French big businesses to grow by buying out the various smaller companies, and thus making them more competitive on the global market. France’s global giants, such as L’Oreal, Renault, CFP (later known as Total) and others would become globally recognizable brands, enjoying governmental support abroad. A controversial part of their policies involved moving many factory workplaces out of metropolitan France to Algeria (the state providing plants with armed security), in an organized attempt at combating the unemployment there, as well as making it a way for the people to achieve “social advancement”. France would also not hesitate in straightforwardly nationalizing entire branches of economy or establishing a forced “private-public partnership”, the latter being the case of CFP, which became one of the largest oil companies in the world and a major employer in Algeria. The former involved for example transportation, with France nationalizing the air transportation businesses in 1966 and combining them into the AIR FRANCE, railroads (which happened in 1938 with the French government owning 51% ownership of the SNCF, that being further extended to 100% ownership under Gastin) and autoroutes in 1970. With liberal reforms in both economy and social affairs making the society much more mobile than previously, this had led to increased revenue for the state budget as well as increased security for their users – French airways/rails/autoroutes being marked as among the safest in the world.



French motorways were praised for their quality and safety.

Promises of granting the French people security were one of the most common coming from French politicians, and for good reason. Already having to deal with the threat of NLF spreading its operations out of Algeria and into metropolitan France, the delegalisation of the French Communist and Fascist parties, together with many of their “auxiliary” organization, made many of their supporters, now not restricted by law and due-process, take the path of violence. Despite anti-gun laws, weapons were relatively easy to acquire by those who wanted them. What in the past had been organized and fairly large “storm troopers units”, after their delegalisation became small cells of cooperating terrorists, conducting assassinations of their enemies, raiding districts and households of jews and other “unwantables”, firebombing factories and blowing up high voltage power lines causing blackouts and others actions. Domestic terrorism would lead to over 200 people being killed in metropolitan France in the 70’s alone – the number not even coming close to those in north Africa. To ensure the perception of the republic being strong, large reforms regarding the police were made, increasing their privileges and rights. Their forces have also been increased. Laws regarding the freedom of gathering had also been amended, forcing those who wished to organize any rally in public space to inform not the civilian authorities of their intent, but the police itself, which was empowered with the right to prevent it for security reasons. This sparked great controversy and was a law often challenged in courts, with the judiciary usually taking the side of those who were denied their rights – as what constituted a “threat to security” was not defined. However, expected participation in any such gathering of people associated with the former communist and fascist organizations was considered reason enough, thus clearing the streets of most fascist and communist rallies. Those who were not formally associated with them in the past and took up new banners were allowed to make their rallies, but did not display the same charisma and character as their older predecessors. Support for them would wane, especially when their actions would begin to affect the civilian populations, ostracizing those involved with them in the past.

But the IV Republic’s greatest challenge was that of handling the decolonization process which had been continuously mismanaged for the past decades. The Marseilles Accords did not end the war in Algeria, where violence was still present, the entire ‘department of Algeria’ being under effective military rule for security reasons. France, having lost its chance at preventing the conflict with earlier reforms was forced into a rather tight spot – the population of Algeria being mostly opposed to continuous French presence, internal politics completely eliminating the option of withdrawal. France thus had to improvise with traditional “stick and carrot” policies, bribing those willing to collaborate, discouraging those potentially willing to take up arms by offering them work, good wages and political freedoms, brutally supressing those unwilling to give up fighting with force. France’s reforms in colonial administration would involve the establishment of the so called “French Community” for its various overseas territories and colonies (excluding Algeria, which was under a special regime due to its status as a separate department), which also meant granting the peoples there their own citizenships and rights associated with them. Citizenship laws were introduced, creating the “French Citizenship” meant for the inhabitants of “France Proper”, the so-called “Algerian Citizenship”, which was given to the people from overseas departments and nominally was equal to the “normal” French one, but various regulations and rulings would make them de facto slightly different (including the freedom of travel between the overseas departments and the metropolis), and the “French Community” citizenship – offered to those in Tunisia, Morocco, West Africa and Equatorial Africa. This was a sign of the French attitude towards its empire changing, the question on whether a policy of “assimilation or association?” should be pursued being answered in favour of the latter. Assimilation was recognized as impossible in long term, the approach changing of to “indirect rule”, with the underlying assumptions that colonial subject will with time become more francise (frenchified), but that their development would not threaten French dominance and sensibilities. The paternalistic administrative structures, composed of metropolitan Frenchmen, who ruled through African intermediaries who agreed to collaborate with it would be abolished, with the French Community establishing the three protectorates and two federal colonies as de facto autonomous entities. French decolonization thus had a significantly different character than British, as it aimed at creating political and administrative structures for the colonies, rather than real infrastructure for it – which was also in many ways the result of geography preventing that. One example of that involved the establishment of two high schools and universities for civil servants and administrational workers, in addition to the École William Ponty, in Dakar and Brazzaville, for the purpose of educating a new class of “rulers” – who were to gain power in place of the Frenchmen themselves and act as “African Frenchmen” and rule in their place.



Naval Academy in Dakar.

French culture had by this time rarely penetrated in all but the most superficial ways into African ‘traditional’ society. Where such penetration had taken place, it was usually thanks to French education. Although no more than 15 percent of the population of west and equatorial Africa had attended a French school at the time the IV Republic was proclaimed, this was sufficient to create a new class of African evolues, as they were called in the colonial language of the time. Composed mostly of civil servants working for the colonial administration, for example as interpreters, policeman, teaching assistants and clerks, and employees of European trading companies, they were at least partly acultured. Within this new class, a more thoroughly acultured French-speaking elite had emerged, composed of medical assistants (medecins africains), pharmacists, school teachers (instituteurs) and administrative officers (commis de l’administration) any of whom graduated from the Ecole William-Ponty. Thanks to their education, this French-speaking elite gained access to French ideas and values. Moreover, French schools opened a new route to social promotion for young people within African society, because those who had obtained a French colonial education enjoyed both material privileges and, in the eyes of an increasing number of Africans, enhanced status within African society.

The establishment of the French Community also meant, that their inhabitants had the right to elect their representatives to the French parliament in general elections. The first of the African deputies would become present in 1971, mostly as parts of the socialists, or as independents. Their presence, while nominally not very significant as they only had a limited number of seats was nevertheless important, as it brought the matter of decolonization and the situation of the Africans outside Algeria to public attention – press conferences, interview, social meetings and public events were all situations where the fate of the French Africa was discussed. The African delegates strongly participate in many committees and commissions whenever the matter of colonies were discussed. The autonomy that was promised by Paris would be protected from the capital itself, while the pressures for further extending them also rose. The treaty on the formation of the French Community wasn’t very specific, leaving many details to be attended, which were sought to interpreted in favour of extending self-rule. Also, demands on the right to elect the governor-generals of the colonies and protectorates were brought up, as well as amending the French Community in a way that would specify the powers held by Paris, and those held by the “subjects” – effectively turning France into a federal entity. Those demands were backed up by pointing out the increasing specialization of the French ministries, which had also made them more interested in the affairs of the overseas territories – the ministry of finance wanted greater involvement in colonial development; the ministry of education in colonial schools and academies; ministry of agriculture in agricultural development and production, etc. As the ministries themselves could not handle such a huge task from the central (as well as Gastin being unwilling to enlarge governmental administration), those tasks were transferred to the colonies themselves, which established their own versions of the French ministries.


Propaganda poster promoting the French Community.

The development of “political presence” and “political awareness” of the Africans took different routes for different parts of the empire. In Tunisia, Morocco and to a degree Madagascar, the population already possessed a sense of ethnic identity, which didn’t go too well with attempts at assimilating them into Frenchmen, or even “African Frenchmen”. The war in Algeria, and the expansion of Arab nationalism ideology from the middle east to north Africa had strengthened those who sought to establish the two north African protectorates as independent states, effectively making them join the “emergency” in north Africa – the term “war” still being looked down upon. As the formation of the IV Republic only brought forth promises of autonomy which’s implementation wasn’t as fast (nor was it as broad) as expected, the people who in the past would even be satisfied with autonomy, joined the radicals pursuing independence. The Algerian war would thus escalate, France attempting to play the usual card of the Empire (and the Community) being a means of protection from fascism expansion – Spanish in Morocco, Italian in Tunisia. But that card had already been spent, as the peoples of these states did not see a difference between French imperialism and Italian/Spanish fascism, or even were supportive of these ideologies, believing in their implementation at home after overthrowing France. Both Italy and Spain would support the insurgents with supplies, funds and materials, seeking to extend their influence at the expanse of the “french corpse” – the formation of the IV Republic being seen as a sign of weakness of the capitalist west.

To end the war, France introduced the so-called “squeeze out” policy, which essentially aimed at not so much defeating the NLF, but forcing it to move out of Algeria and “containing” the department. Thus harsh military rule there would not be extended to either Morocco or Tunisia, leading many of the guerilla fighters to choose to move their bases of operation to those safer areas. As the NLF itself began to experience internal difficulties – a conflict between the “nationalist”, believing in their fight being for the “liberation of Algeria”, and the “panarabists”, who saw Algeria’s future as part of a larger pan-Arab state. Since for the latter the connection to Algeria wasn’t as strong, they would most often choose to “migrate”, obtain support from the fascist Italian and Spanish states, use it, gain publicity – thus gaining more recruits at the “nationalists” expanse. While this wasn’t planned by Paris, whose reasons for not introducing martial law in Tunisia and Morocco were different, it worked in the metropolises favour and thus was allowed to continue. Other harsh measures were taken, including forceful eviction and seizure of the wealth of those found guilty of aiding the partisans, revoking their citizenship, demands on their relocation and other – those policies leading to around 40.000 people being forced out of Algeria. Internal borders between Algeria and Morocco and Tunisia were strictly controlled by both police and military. To fight the economic motive for people to take up arms, as well as prevent a flight of the people there to metropolitan France, large employment programs were started, large businesses moving their factories which required cheap and unskilled labour to Algeria, being offered state protection. Those were funded from the revenue generated from Algerian oil and natural gas, which France would use not only to cover almost its entire annual requirements, but also export it abroad. These strict measures were combined with large “public enlightenment campaigns”, explaining the reason for the harsh measures the population had to endure. The society of Algeria was among the most militarized of all of France, as the people there had to become used to living in a constant “state of war”, when an attack could occur at any place and time. Such tough measures had eventually paid off though, as violence in north Africa would shrink with time, though at the expanse of things being more difficult in Morocco and Tunisia.


Scenes formerly seen in Algeria would become more common in Tunisia and Morocco.

The introduction of autonomy through the French Community institutions was unfortunately “too little, too late” for the people there, who would nevertheless seek full independence. The liberalization of France’s colonial policies had strongly reduced its power, as well as those of its governors, extending self-rule – which would mostly be used to introduce policies looked down upon by France. The process couldn’t be stopped however, and reform in the seventies led to first the establishment of national legislatures in Madagascar, Morocco and Tunisia, together with their own parliaments Heads, who would assume a lot of the powers formerly reserved for the French governors. France approved of these changes, not being able to do much against and being under a lot of public pressure to allow liberalization – conservative, harsh governors appointed to those positions would quickly find themselves under media attention, their eve remotely tough decisions being instantly criticized, forcing them to either resign or be revoked from office, replaced by other, “open-minded” ones. Despite these acts of goodwill, it was not enough to prevent the people from resorting to violence – Morocco and Tunisia suffering from warfare, leading to over 100.000 people being killed in those countries through the 70’s.In Madagascar the situation would be slightly different due to the “calmness” there, following a great uprising in the years 1962-63, brutally squashed by the French colonial forces, causing over 20.000 people to lose their lives. Following that, the new Governor-General Francois Sevez would implement a completely new approach, introducing liberal reforms, restraining himself from using his nominal powers, strongly cooperating with the local population and its political elites. Honors were paid to those fallen in the uprising and a lot of the French resources were in fact used for the creation of a Madagascar militia. Sevez would mostly stay out of domestic policies, allowing the people to pretty much rule themselves, as long as there was peace – which managed to be maintained. The long sought independence would thus only be achieved in 1979 for Madagascar and in 1980 for Morocco and Tunisia. Madagascar would be the only country to maintain security policy ties with France, signing a mutual protection pact with it, and occasionally allowing the French Navy to make use of its facilities.

Political activism was different in the two French “Federal Colonies” of West Africa and Equatorial Africa. National sentiment there was mostly non-present, or rather had the form of tribal sentiment, very diverse. Most of the population of them were also concentrated near the coastlines. As a result, the first signs of “positive activism” – one aimed at reforming or creating something in place of the colonial administration rather than destroying it for the sake of fighting colonialism would not take the form of national organization, but labour unions and workers rights groups. Part of the decolonization process involved also deindustrialization, which in turned created the necessity for labour laws to be introduced and enforced in those areas of the French Community workplaces went. Works on introducing a labour code (code du travail) were commenced and rather than waiting for complete results, individual acts on those matters for colonies were introduced, such as laws on collective bargaining and the right of freely creating unions, both by Paris, as well as Dakar and Brazzaville. Attempts at preventing their introduction or their enforcement were quickly reported to the metropolis, the general sentiment being that doing so went against what “True France” was: a kind of tribune, defender of the values of liberty and equlity and a force of progress, to which French-educated Africans appealed for support over the heads of reactionary colonial officials, portrayed as traitors to the cause of the IV Republic. Many colonial officials supported them, seeing them as a way of reducing tensions coming from economic reasons: with new labour laws in place, when disputes arose, they could be resolved as normal legal conflicts, rather than having a wider political-colonial oppression meaning.

Rioting in Africa often took the form of demands for higher wages and better working conditions

The French decolonization process in west and equatorial Africa, which abandoned attempts at assimilate or eventually even “maintain association”, leaving many matters in the hands of locals, led to the creation of rather elitarian societies, where ones position and indeed worth was determined by their “standing”, coming from their acquired education and work occupation. Those created not only a divide between the “rich elite” and “poor beggars”, but also rifts between the “classes” themselves: such as dividing employees workers depending on “professional categories” of different levels and ranks. One’s knowledge and skills were thus not treated as traits which could be used for the benefit of society or simply sold by him to those willing to pay for them, but as guarded secrets, possession of which determined ones place on the social ladder. They would be carefully guarded secrets, those holding them , using them to enforce their authority over others, even taking action to prevent others from obtaining them, so as not to create competition for themselves. This created a culture of “unhealthy competition”, where advancement was looked down upon those less fortunate, who rather than take action to better themselves, would try to drag those above them down to their level. This strongly affected cultural and economic development, giving ground for socialist and communist agitation, and preventing those countries from making full use of France’s benefits granted onto them, as well as their independence once achieved – which occurred in 1980, with the formation of the Federation of West Africa and the Federation of Equatorial Africa after a peaceful vote on declaring their independence, and the withdrawal of the remaining French colonial troops and Community administration.


French forces withdrawing from West Africa in 1980

That the two federations actually managed to survive, rather than break up into separate states was quite remarkable, seeing that the federal government wasn’t very popular among the people, most of whom were apathetic towards it, as well as that stronger national sentiments that began to grow with time. France did work for the purpose of preventing that, establishing a strong and functional federal administration in place of its less efficient colonial one, pointing out that landlocked states were much less feasible than those with access to sea, and more prone to submitting to neighbours demands (a European lesson it had already learnt). Britain too took action to ensure that the principle of “right of nations to self-determination” does not evolve into “tribal secessionism”, as it would jeopardize its position in Africa, as well as possibly leading to a great deal of conflicts a “balkanization of Africa” could have caused. The USA was however strongly opposed to it and would often challenge France as the ” defender of the values of liberty”, pointing out the preservation of Algeria, French Somaliland and other possessions as overseas departments, as signs of colonialism. Also, France had signed a considerable number of international agreements with the former states of the French Community on economic and military matters, including free trade agreements, preservation of the assets of French companies, the right of using their territories and bases for training and others – a policy called by the USA as “neo-colonialism”. That some truth would be in those statements would be proven in future years, when Paris would take direct action in the protection of the FWA government from a coup in 1984 and in 1988, using the French Foreign Legion to restore the overthrown legal governments back to power, and those soldiers participating in military action against various groups who sought to overthrow the state – mostly of communist nature, as the country had become a strong bastion of Marxist ideology.

Decolonization and independence of the states of the French Community brought up the question of citizenship of the Community’s peoples. Its termination meant that the “French Community” citizenship, those holding them having them replaced with those of the newly founded independent states. However, a lot of those people – especially those collaborating or employed by the French republic – sought to obtain French citizenship, as they genuinely felt more connected to France than their “state of origin”. The matter was heavily debated upon in the French parliament, fears of an influx of migrants and refugees possibly destabilizing the country, harming its economy, or the people themselves being “culturally alien”. Others pointed out that such a decision could only be voluntary, and those choosing that path having been in the service of France one way or other – France owing them something in return. A compromise was reached by allowing a very broad array of peoples from the former French Community to request the “Algerian citizenship” – which was meant as a step for obtaining “full” citizenship in the future. This would result in a considerable migration movement of Arabs, Berbers, Sub-Saharan Africans, who would prefer to move to Algeria (or other French Overseas Department, though those destinations were much less common) than stay in their countries – due to feeling a connection to France, fearing for their lives and livelihood in the countries where they would be seen as potential “traitor”, where they already suffered persecution or just looked towards France as a place of better opportunities. While former “state officials” such as soldiers, policemen, teachers, administration workers were the most common group to follow this path, it was also done by the many peoples of “free trades”, like French-educated doctors or lawyers, or even the skilled physical workers. This affected both the newly independent states, which would be denied a large part of the most productive part of their societies (overall, the estimates suggesting over 600.000 people choosing to migrate), accusing France of “brain-drain”, but the Arabs in Algeria as well, who would look down upon those newly arrived. Ethnic, racial, economic and even religious conflicts would arise between them and the migrants, racism against the blacks and Catholics who would manage to prosper better in the rapidly developing Algeria than the natives becoming strongly felt. Those peoples would in turn look towards the state for aid which they would receive – anti-racism laws introducing preference of those newly arrived, aid for them being provided through benefits programs, employment quotas and other means would be used to try to quell the conflicts. Despite those difficulties, Algeria would continuously develop, as would France, now without the burden of an empire to maintain, but with a modernized military, industry and agriculture, thus making it among the most wealthy and powerful states in the world.


The French IV Republic in 1980

[omi]

nice update as usual so basically it is the francafrique of otl how is Italy is there a war in Ethiopia and how does the cold war end do the facisct and communist bloc survives

[MSZ]

Next part is up

The détente began by Germany came at a time of difficulties, the fascist system in Germany struggling with an increasing number of difficulties. Goring’s death marked the end of an era, his persona being often compared to that of Stalin – the apprentice of a great revolutionary leader who took over the mantle of his master and led his country from being a battered down state to a global great power. But the status of a global great power had its costs, which took an increasing toll on Germany. The continuous nationalization, centralization and increase in bureaucracy had come to affect the German society and economy, growth and development slowing down considerably. With the traditional source of Germany’s wealth – mid-sized companies producing goods and services for the local population, quickly adapting to their needs while also being able to resist competition from others – being progressively taken over by large state-owned or state-controlled companies, which mass-produced for the needs of the entire German people, Germans found themselves increasingly dissatisfied with their livelihood, especially when comparing themselves with the western societies, which had the benefit of having access to many different and regional products at lower prices. The public services which the fascist states usually prided themselves on, like transportation or healthcare was also falling into neglect, trains at best not being late, but also not increasing in speed. While the German autobahns were wide and their network developed, fuel prices prevented many from actually using them on a daily basis.

Like many empires before, when it times of crisis, Germany too turned towards its “subjects” to compensate for losses, trying to drain them and pushing its problems from itself onto them. Under the guise of “coordination”, policies aimed at fixing prices in other countries to make German products competitive there were introduced, those deemed necessary by the Reich being bought out at artificially low prices, fixed exchange rates between the currencies of the Mitteleuropa countries and the Reichsmark established, inflation in them being purposely raised and other such practices being conducted. National-Socialist ideology envisioned Germany as the nexus and central hub of industrial activity, providing it’s “allies” with the most sophisticated products, reducing others to providers of parts and raw minerals. Ideologists like Heinrich Hunke strongly emphasized the need for this “European Unity” in face of the communist menace – but the action taken had in fact weakened what used to be a certain degree of solidarity between central Europeans, as the view of Germans being just as menacing as the Russians became increasingly common. While German viewed themselves as being “justifiably” superior and deserving of their position in Europe, looking down at others, those others would begin to see the Germans as tyrants, either present ones (in the Balkan states), or tyrant-wannabees, possibly even greater than the soviets. Demand for resisting German advances were present not only among the public, but also the fascist parties, leading to German pressures being stronger in some areas, and weaker in others. While the Balkan states and Czechia, already occupied by the German Army had it worst, countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia to fold to many demands but were nonetheless able to pursue an independent economic policy as well, though significantly hampered by the OMEWZE institutions and other deals or means used by Germany. The Danube Treaty had significantly restricted the rights to using that river by the countries it flowed through in favour of Germany. German companies had also significantly penetrated many branches of those countries economies, including for example naval facilities – shipyards, docks, harbours and others, preventing their full use for overseas exports. Italy, Poland and to a degree Hungary remained as those most resistant to German influence, but even they were not impenetrable.



A “German Store” in Riga. “German stores” would be a common source of quality German goods in the fascist states.

Hanke’s liberalisation policies would thus involve not only bettering relation with the capitalist states, but with the fascist allies as well. To encourage the large German conglomerates to increase efficiency, trade barriers would be lowered forcing them to compete with both quality made western goods, as well more of those from the east becoming available (though the specific policies were purposefully established in a way that was meant to ensure that German products still had an advantage over imports). More powers were also moved from the central headquarters to more local directors and executive officers, as well as foreign branches. Social life also underwent changes, with cultural and student exchanges becoming more common, former very strict laws on tobacco and alcohol use, possession and sale repealed, entrepreneur freedom partly restored – many Germans using the opportunity to buy cheap products in the east and rather than selling them at official German prices, doing so illegally to friends and families. Elements of foreign cultures were also beginning to enter the homes of fascist states, including formerly non-present western music and movies. To restore the faith in Germany other countries in central Europe used to have, a new policy was officially introduced, one in which “partnership” was to be a key term in, though its effects weren’t overwhelming – but they did lead to the Wehrmacht’s withdrawal from Czechia in 1968. Decentralization and liberalisation also meant greater freedom in the NSDAP as well – with former marginal movements, such as the marginal, fanatic agrarians or the more traditional conservatives coming to prominence, being able to even criticize past and present governmental policies.

Despite these difficulties, Germany entered the détente from a position of self-perceived strength, the reforms being a way to preserve that strength, rather than a sign of weakness. The Reich was far from what may have been considered a crisis, though it did predict one may come in the future from the experience of others. Goring’s era were a time when it was difficult for the younger generations to advance in the state structures, Hanke was however a realist and would open up the way for them, allowing the first generation of Germans to be both born and raised in a National-Socialist Germany to power and accepting their demands for changes. Many young Germans had already proven their reliability, whether in the wars I former Yugoslavia, in the Taiwan strait or in the laboratories of German research centres. While lacking in the raw amount of resources or manpower the BCoN or the USSR possessed, Germany made up that difference with a extremely well skilled cadre of scientists and think-tanks, its scientific-industrial-military complex being extremely efficient. Education was very valued in the Reich and emphasised as critical for its continuous existence. Also, the lack of many restraints which were present in the heads of western scientists and politicians had also given Germany a technological advantage. The launch of the Valkyrie satellite was but the first step in the space race in which Germany would lead – and use to prove its glory to the world. On the 1st of May 1963 Germany had set another record in its achievement, sending the first man - Sigmund Werner Paul Jähn – to space, aboard the Grani-1 spacecraft. Even that however wasn’t enough to satisfy the ambitions of the Germans – with this success mobilising the entire strength of the USSR and the BCoN to not only match up, but exceed the Germans, the moon was the next destination. Parallel programs were enacted, and having massive popular support among all states, would create a very fierce rivalry, which once again the Germans would win, placing the first man on the moon on January 17th 1971. That would be a close call though, as the British would do the same already on 14th February the same year, the USSR accomplishing that on April 2nd 1972.



Pictures of the moon landings of Germany, the UK and the USSR.

Research of space technologies fuelled the development progress of many other associated with them, both the classical ones like metallurgy and chemistry, as well as the new ones like aerodynamics and electronics. Germany was the first country to establish an actual “high-tech” industry sector, its implementation of electronics to various appliances being another great achievement, quickly copied by others, as were the products of German biotechnologies, such as various drugs, vaccines and therapies developed by German doctors – the fact that many were allowed to use human subjects in experimentation giving them a significant edge over others.

But while space flight and new commercial goods were an important part of the cold war competition, proof of a countries greatness and its ability to satisfy both the physical and spiritual needs of its peoples, it would be something completely different that would be the greatest development of the détente period, something that would change the world forever – nuclear power. The possibility of harnessing the power of the atoms themselves had been speculated for decades, Germany being a leader in the matter, having performed the first nuclear fission by Otto Hahn in 1938. Since then, developments in nuclear sciences were made in fits and starts – as numerous societies and organizations were established for the purposes of pursuing this branch of knowledge, but only some obtaining the necessary funding – and often not even the same ones. Lack of governmental interest was coupled with lack of coordination by the scientists themselves. It wasn’t until 1951 that the first cyclotron was installed in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, after which many of the dispersed scientific minds of Germany would flock to it, hoping to gain access to it and advance their practical research. The first uranium mine was opened in Germany in 1952 in Jauernig, providing the necessary resources. The Institute would still however be significantly lacking in funds, as well as governmental support – the requirements in rare materials used in military production, as well as the sheer quantity of even the more basic goods, like electricity, being a significant problem.

It was only in 1960 that a major breakthrough occurred when the German military had shown an interest in the up until then civilian research, with the potential purpose of using nuclear power for military purposes. With initial calculations proving that even a relatively small quantity of fissionable material being able to unleash a great deal of energy, counted in thousands of tons of TNT, the possibility for harnessing that energy stimulated the fantasies of the military minds of the Reich. This gave birth to the Project Riese, started in the Owl Mountains in Silesia as a military-led nuclear power research centre. The project was led by general Wolf Graf von Baudissin, the head of the Office Group for General Wehrmacht Affairs, while the scientific group was led by Erich Bagge. It was preceded by numerous others suggested proposals and small-scale plans, including the possibilities for nuclear-powered engines for Kriegsmarine ships, or using them for production of electrical energy. Project Riese became one of the Reich’s most secret projects, with most of the complex being constructed underground, the workers themselves being told their work was done for constructing underground munitions factories. With starting the project, the Germans have established an unprecedented system of security. The Wehrmacht was extremely careful in choosing the personnel involved in the project, swearing them to secrecy and strictly controlling those recruited to the project, very few being given full clearance regarding the full magnitude of the project, most scientist being limited to pursuing just a narrow part of their intended research. The German secret police and counter-intelligence agencies invigilated and controlled all information regarding the project, including contact with family members. The people involved were given false identities with different names, a special language introduced to cover what the project was about, replacing certain words like “atom” or “bomb” with different ones, changed often. The project would altogether involve over a 100 thousand people of different professions, very few of which would be part of it from the start to the end.



Satellite photo of the Reise complex. The existence of unseen underground parts of it fooled most analysists about its true size.

As part of the disinformation campaign against the Soviets and British, who too were known to be somewhat involved in nuclear power research, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute was maintained as a cover, many of its works being marked as confidential, but occasionally leaked or allowed to be leaked – for the purpose of ensuring that the enemies of the Reich believed that while Germany was interested in the new technology, it wasn’t paying significant attention to it, thus allowing to keep the western powers and the USSR off guard. German intelligence and counter-intelligence would play a sophisticated game of deception, hiding the existence of Riese by claiming Germany had no nuclear power project, and the works in Heidelberg were the only ones conducted – a play that worked out perfectly, as few in the world suspected what the Riese was, if they even knew about it. In 1964 the first controlled chain reaction was performed, ensuring that German progress was going in the right direction. The Riese complex had come to eventually grow into a complete underground science-city, housing thousands of people, while in Jauernig gigantic manufacturing plants were established, producing special equipment for the project. The final fruits of a decade of work came in 1970, in the form of three atomic bombs, the first of which was detonated on the military training ground in Ohrdruf in Thuringia. The size of the explosion exceed expectation, reaching 20 thousand tons of TNT. The detonation, heard in an area of over 300 km away from it, was quickly covered as an explosion of an artillery shells storage supply, the existence of the nuclear bomb remaining a successfully hidden secret. From that point, development raced ahead in the construction of larger and more destructive bombs.

The success of the German nuclear program was however not without drawbacks – many scientists involved in it having moral doubts about the weapon, and the destructive power it covered. The fact that it was kept secret was also not understood by many of them – if the weapon was meant to act as a “weapon of defence” and a deterrent, keeping it secret made no logical sense, as nobody could feel fear from something they didn’t know. Leaks about Germany having “some kind of Wunderwaffe” would make its way to London, Moscow and even Washington, though with officially German research being limited to the non-impressive efforts in Heidelberg, only some believed that it in fact was a nuclear device. Only in 1972 would the secret be out after the defection of Jochen Heisenberg, the son of Werner Heisenberg, head of Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Nuclear Physics, who unlike his father would be involved in thermonuclear research, during which he would flee to Paris. There he would reveal the existence of German nuclear weaponry, together with proof of it, as well as inform the world of further German experiments. His revelation would shock the world, and though Berlin would deny his claims for a few months, it would eventually come to admit it, going as far as inviting foreign observers to the planned detonation of the first thermonuclear bomb Siegfried – which would take place on an uninhabited island in the Adriatic Sea, off the coast of Dalmatia, where a fake “town” would also be established. The detonation was to show the full power of the German arsenal – the successful test completely obliterating the entire island, shocking all witnesses.



Early draft of the German plutonium bomb Helga

The world was dumbstruck, as Germany had clearly become the world’s greatest military power, as by that point it also already possessed missiles capable of inter-continental flight, targeting any place on earth – and with no defence against it. In Berlin, actual calls for immediate war against the USSR would be made, while Germany still held a monopoly on the weapon – as it was expected that with the weapons revelation, both the UK and the USSR would take steps to create their own. They were not wrong, and in fact it would take only two years for the UK to create its own nuclear weapon, created in a joint BCoN – US effort, combining the resources of both these giants – the fact that the weapon feasibility had been confirmed, British and American independent research also being advanced and almost unlimited funds being given, allowing for success to be achieved swiftly. The Soviet Union would also follow, initiating its first nuclear device in 1976. The three global great powers would thus enter yet another deadly competition in the form of who managed to produce more nuclear weapons, dubbed the “nuclear arms race”. Other powers in the world would too look toward obtaining this new technology, believing it to be the ultimate source of security.

While these type of special weapons would among the greatest achievements of the Cold War, conventional weaponry would also be developed, a great deal of experimental projects being undertaken, producing technologies later adopted either in the military, or making its way to the civilian markets - night vision tech, lasers, heat detectors, Wankel engines and many others. The paranoia of the cold war would lead many to pursue a path of logic dubbed “bigger is better”, creating immense vanity projects. Among the most iconic ones was the Landkreuzer Ratte project – the worlds greatest “tank”, more often called a “land cruiser”, as it in fact was almost a sea cruiser with tracks. Meant as a tool of battlefield domination in the steppes of Eastern Europe, only one prototype was produced never to enter service for its impracticality – making it however in the future to museums as evidence of the craziness of the era.



The Landkreuzer Ratte, largest tank ever built

Germany would continue on to establish itself as a global power. Unlike the UK or Russia, it did not have a trans-continental empire, thus having to rely on “allies” across the globe. Germany’s stalwart stance in preventing the spread of communism was among its greatest assets, as unlike the UK – it was much more trustworthy in that manner, despite much lesser power projection capabilities. Many post-colonial states fearing Marxist expansion, would choose the “weaker but certain” Germany over the “stronger but uncertain” Britain, especially since Germany had much less requirements on matters such as civil liberties an democratic rule. German officers would be sent to many south American states as military advisors, as countries there often struggled with communist guerrillas. In the Middle East, the Reich would be among the strongest supporters of Arab Nationalism, having very good relation with the former British and French ruled countries. Quality weapon and military know-how in return for resources and currency was an important part of the German economy, though the country would strive for obtaining a global position based not only on military strength and technology but all kinds of different achievements – sports events being used as propaganda tools showing the physical capacity of the Germanic race, cultural shows and fares depicting the order and prosperity of German people. With London and New York being the central hubs of global capitalist trade, Frankfurt-am-Main aimed at achieving a similar position among the fascist states. With aeronautic research being extremely advanced, the BCoN strongly relying on air transportation to keep itself together, making cities like London and Delhi hubs of global communications, Germany would do the same, constructing immense airports (the largest constructed in Munich) and air fleets, meant to satisfy the needs of the fascist countries across the globe.




German Lufthansa super-sonic jet airliner on the airstrip in Munich


Among the allies gathered in the 60’s would be Thailand, one of the few countries in Asia not to fall under a colonial regime maintaining independence, as well as being relatively homogenous and socially developed – over 80% of the country’s population self-identifying themselves as Thai, rather than by any regional or tribal identity. Following a coup in 1932, the country had been continuously led by Prime Minister and Field Marshall Plaek Phibunsongkhram, being a military dictatorship. While fascist influences were strong in the government, the ideology being seen as means of modernization, development and abandonment of “old ways”, the country nevertheless remained under heavy western influence, being located between British India, Malaya and French Indochina. Thailand remained supportive of both of the western powers to a degree, looking at them with suspicion and many considering them “unwanted” – but necessary, as they were also the greatest guarantee of continued Thai independence in the face of communist expansion in Asia. Thailand collaborated with both France and the UK during the war in Indochina and in Malaya, allowing passage of troops and materials through its territory and giving access to its bases, cooperating in terminating the occasional transit routes going through its territory to the war-torn countries from China.

Decolonisation took its effect on Thailand, the global and regional situation changing faster than the regime could react. French withdrawal from Indochina and the establishment of Social Republics in Laos and Cambodia had made Thailand the next expected “target” of the crawling revolution. However, with France completely leaving south-east Asia and the UK concentrating all its efforts on maintaining its empire rather than containing the spread of communism, Thailand began to feel abandoned. Failures in wars with irregulars had shook the ruling regimes confidence in western military capability, while diplomatic work made it believe that in case of war, the UK would more likely leave Thailand to fend for itself if it was to give it more time to prepare its own possessions for defence or give it a sense of fake security. With the “disliked, but necessary” sentiment towards Britain diminishing, pro-German sentiment began to rise, its willingness to combat communism well known, its capacity of doing that as far away as Thailand proven in the strait in Taiwan. Since the coup that brought the military to power, both fascist and national-socialist movements had grown in strength in the country, creating its own ideological blend – the supremacy of the Thai over other Asians, proven through their non-colonial status, the Chinese becoming the “Jews” of Thailand, who were to be blamed for difficulties and persecuted.



Bangkok would be an awkward place for many visitors, blending elements of both fascist and western cultures.

Plaek Phibunsongkhram would rule for decades, his political views hardly changing over the years and missing the effects the rise of a new generation of people had on the country. Power would leak through his hands, as would his actual control over state affairs, the country becoming increasingly more corrupt and oppressive – which wasn’t actually his wish. Phibunsongkhram stance towards the small changes occurring would most often be described as “non-action”. He hardly participated or even initiated the progressing accumulation of power by the military and destruction of the last vestiges and institutions of democracy in the country, often even being considered an “obstructionist” by many of the radicals. Phibunsongkhram would be opposed over too great censorship or the full and official termination of political opposition, seeing maintaining them as a way of pleasing the west who he still viewed as Thailand’s best guarantee against China, though would not prevent them from occurring – unlike the call for the nationalization of the foreign-owned industries, a move he wholeheartedly was against and would stop. This made many – both among the military and the population – believe that he was still in bed with the western imperialists, strengthening the opposition towards him, especially among the military, which had become a considerable political force in the country, being well-funded and equipped, protecting its long borders with communist states in the east and north.

Phibunsongkhram’s death in 1963 while undergoing medical treatment would be the last obstacle to be overcome for the completion of the transition of power. With a new constitution being introduced already in 1954, created specifically in a way to benefit the military, allowing its leaders to participate in the works of parliamentary committees and other bodies of executive nature, by 1963 there was virtually no one to oppose a military figure to take over power from the dead field marshal. That figure would be Sarit Thanarat, who had in the past distinguished himself in fighting communist Pathet Lao militias in the north-east and remained for a long time Phibunsongkhram’s right hand, until falling out of favour in 1958 for “too strong” association with the Thai national-socialists movements. After his former mentor’s death, he was quick to return to the capital from the north-east where he was “exiled” to, together with a considerable contingent of troops. There he would force the parliament to elect him as the next prime minister, his support coming from the many nationalist-minded military people, as well as many of the commoners, as his own propaganda and charisma would be effective in creating the impression that he was removed for his opposition to corruption and injustice of the former regime – his persona being a promise of change. However, it would in fact become even more authoritarian that the former through abrogating the constitution, dissolving parliament, and vesting all power in his newly-formed Revolutionary Party of Thailand, with a strong national-socialist ideology. Martial law would be introduced and all other political parties banned, introducing a straightforwardly fascist rule in the country. Sarit Thanarat would be also quick to take a firm stand in the question where Thailand stood in the global cold war, joining the Anti-Comintern Pact in 1966. This was much to Germany’s delight which strongly sought to strengthen its global presence, as well as its economy being hungry for the many rare resources found in the distant parts of the world – whether bauxites, spices or oriental antiques. With Thailand nationalizing many of its industries, Germany would come to take their place, selling arms and machines in vast amounts, to mutual benefit. German-Thai cooperation would go very far, as with the country remaining a frontier against communism in Asia, military cooperation would also increase – the Ostasiengeschwader becoming strengthened and making occasional trips to Thailand. With Germany eventually also developing nuclear weapons, the choice if it becoming the basis of Thai security seemed to be the right one – Thailand offering to lease bases to Germany to house missiles with nuclear warheads. This would spark the so called “Thai Missile Crisis”, when the USSR, China and India would all protest against it. And although Hanke would eventually not give permission for that, the crisis resulted in over 4000 German marines being sent to Bangkok, initially as a “security force” for the bases that would never receive the missiles they waited for. Nevertheless, even without the missiles, the soldiers would remain there, much to Thailand’s delight as another solid guarantee of its defence.



Member states of the Anti-Comintern Pact in 1971. Spain, Portugal, Turkey and Java holding observer status.

[MSZ]

Next part is up

Mussolini’s Italy had gone a long way from its beginnings just after the Great War, going from the position of a second rate European power of only regional significance, to the status of a recognized great power, standing on equal footing with the already established ones, such as France. While not a global great power, Italy was nevertheless the largest and most important partner of the German Reich and a force to be reckoned with in the Mediterranean Sea. What it lacked in economic or military strength, it made up in its naval power, highly developed culture and education systems, the prestige and benefits of a mostly dissent-free colonial empire, the charisma of Il Duce himself, and the position as the recognized “cradle” of the fascist ideology, to which many other leaders across the globe would look up to. Italian Fascism ideology had become significantly more popular across the world than National Socialism, much to Germany’s dismay, influencing a great number of “off-shots” in Europe, Asia and even the Americas. Mussolini was among the most recognizable and longest ruling leaders in the entire world, a person whose words were widely listened to, by fascist and non-fascists alike, many ideological and philosophical works being attributed to him, even though he rarely would actually write more often, more often just signing himself under compilations of others works.

Mussolini’s death would thus be a great blow to Italy itself, as well as the entire fascist movement, which would have thus lost its godfather. Coming as a surprise, as despite his old age, Benito was still considered in great physical shape, it would become initially the source of conspiracy theories, blaming communist assassins for his death, but those would quickly die of once the truth about his battle with cancer would be revealed – his iconic baldness and recognized fitness hiding the fact he was under chemotherapy, allowing him to remain in public view. Benito Mussolini would thus die peacefully at the age 83 on 14th of March 1966 in his house in Rome.




Funeral of Benito Mussolini


The obvious candidate in succeeding him in leadership was Arturo Michelini, the secretary of the National Fascist Party and the secretary of the Great Council of Fascism since 1954. Despite being long considered to be Mussolini’s “heir apparent”, Il Duce attempting to revive the Roman tradition of a diarchy, were the leader would “prepare” his successor to the art of leadership for years before passing on the mantle, his ascension was not without opposition from the more moderate and liberal wings of the NFP which had formed over the years. Michelini was seen as a conservative continuator of Mussolini’s will, who would quite often speak against the various reformative actions in fascist parties abroad, calling them “capitalist deviations” or “socialist leanings”, and would not allow for reformation despite the difficulties the fascist Italian state would find itself during the final years of Mussolini’s reign – obsolete industry, outdated navy and army, collapsing agriculture, severe decline in foreign exports.



Arturo Michelini, Prime Minister of Italy



Despite what statistics and “common knowledge” would tell, Italy’s position was much more feeble than it would appear, being de facto based on only two pillars: Il Duce’s massive charisma and strength of personality, through which the entire Italian country would be viewed abroad as strong and proud, and revenue from the sale of crude oil from north Africa, keeping the economy afloat. While Italian culture was impressive, it’s architects, artists, movies, books, universities being admired world-wide, they weren’t however truly “better” than what other countries offered, the modern, globalizing world making it easier to produce things than to sell them – and Italy had a significant trouble finding “customers”, whether for its industrial products loosing competition with both the west and other fascist states, the style of its goods considered too conservative and unappealing. Italy had simply become “dull” for the young, with available clothes being boring (small, private tailor works and hand-made ones making a comeback, if fabric was available), furniture, cars, other “luxuries” and things that people simply wanted to have to distinguish themselves from others – homogenous and uniform. Western products would be in demand and emigration of the skilled people rising, causing Italy to introduce harsher migration laws and protectionism, to little effect, as bribery had become very common and it was becoming impossible from preventing people from seeing the western way of life and thus trying to imitate it. Fascist culture prided itself on monumentalizm, but other than making things big, they rarely did “fit” to Italy’s natural beauty and old architecture.

By 1966, the Italian Navy would also appear to be a power reckoned with, rivaling France and being the largest navy in the Mediterranean Sea. Counting 3 aircraft carriers, 6 battleships, 42 heavy and light cruisers and over 90 destroyers, it was the most powerful navy of the axis powers – on paper. Most of the Italian Navy ships were simply old, the capital ships being launched in the 40’s, many of the cruisers and destroyers being as old as remembering the Great War. Mussoloni’s policy of never lowering the number of vessels made the navy appear powerful, but it in fact had only grown in strength by a little since the 40’s. With the older ships having to be scrapped, they were replaced by new ones in only a one-to-one ratio, as due to the need of currency Italian naval shipyards would be moved to either civilian production of ships, or constructing ships for the navies of other states – primarily Germany, Taiwan, Thailand, Egypt. Thus the most modern designs would find themselves in foreign, not Italian service, the Regia Marina being stuck with what it had. It’s compensation in the form of Italians being in command of the Berlin Fact fleet in the Mediterranean being of little value, as the navies of the German controlled Balkan States barely had fleets of their own, those that did being limited to green waters.




Aircraft Carrier Falco, flagship of the Regia Marina


Despite those “real weaknesses”, Italy’s position as a naval power would nevertheless be undisputed. Mussolini’s authority would assure that, and his obsession with roman times, re-modeling Italy into a Second Roman Empire also made him push for introducing of those old concepts of Roman Law in both domestic and international law – including marine law. To strengthen Italy’s position, Mussolini would carry out an active foreign policy in the Mediterranean Sea region, as well as in various international organizations (including the LoN) to strengthen the rights of states to control their waters – meaning extending those considered “national waters”, limiting the right of innocent passage, giving more control and privileges to countries exclusive economic zone and others. Italy essentially pushed for severely limiting the principle of “free seas”, seeing it a thing preventing its domination in the Mediterranean, giving the UK an advantage. Mussolini would go as far as to declare large parts of the Ionian Sea extending all the way to the coast of Italian Libya as its “historic waters” (like the Hudson Bay for Canada or the White Sea for Russia) in 1960. This claim would spark a temporal crisis between the axis powers and the western power which called it illegal and refused to recognize it. A naval stand-off between the Regia Marina and the Royal Navy took place in April the same year, as the British fleet would cruise across those waters to Cyprus in clear defiance of Italy. Mussolini would eventually come to let the ships be and renounce those claims, though he would still successfully push through his demands on limiting third parties rights to countries exclusive economic zones and have it extended in Italy’s case to the large area between continental Italy and its north African territory, despite the area exceeding 400 nautical miles. Italy would find a lot of support for the concept of “Mare Nostrum” among both the fascist states and other developing and post-colonial states who too did feel the principle of free seas placed them at a disadvantage in competition for harvesting sea resource with western powers with powerful fleets. With the Organization of Maritime States and the LoN treties on marine law confirming many of Italy’s suggestions (essentially allowing for the country to inspect any ship passing through its waters if sufficient evidence for national transit rights being broken occur; these type of privileges being rarely enforced), the fascist states would come to also sign their own Territorial Waters Treaty, recognizing each other’s exclusive economic zones as their territorial waters, dividing the Baltic and Mediterranean Seas along arbitrary lines. Italy would later also succeed in signing free right of passage agreement with both Egypt (including the transit through the Suez and rail transport to the horn of Africa) and Spain (after failed talks on Italy buying Spanish Morocco).

Italian agriculture had also fallen on a hard time, being one of the first areas of economy fascism had come to reform, causing great damage. In accordance to the old roman law principles which considered land and estates to be just the same type of good as any other, Italian law would greatly liberalize the trading of estates as well as remove many restrictions and obligations usually associated with their possession. In the case of agriculture, the common practice of establishing the minimum area that homesteads and farms had to have (introduced to prevent too much parceling out and fragmentation) was abolished. Also, Italy had introduced a very generous system of agricultural intervention buying, based on the amount of land cultivated and the type of produced goods, rather than production amount and total consumption. This resulted in many families deciding to divide their farms among their many members (as the same amount of hectares divided into many farms would net more money total than a single one having them all), turning production to those products most demanded by the state, (rather than the ones most consumed and thus easy to sell) and giving them only token attention – inspectors and governmental officials being routinely bribed into either confirming the land being cultivated or writing in books that more was produced than in reality (inconsistencies being cleared by either more bribery, or declared having gone bad and thrown away). Italy’s agricultural output would thus rise only insignificantly, mostly thanks to the fact that the individual farms owned by family members would still cooperate on buying and selling goods they needed, like new tractors and fertilizers. The government however refused to reform the system, hoping that it would keep the farmers happy and content, trying to deal with the problem of unsatisfactory production growth by opening more land for plantation in north Africa and settling people there. But this has also been unsuccessful as the desert climate there made production expensive and hard requiring specialized infrastructure and equipment, leading to the produced foodstuffs also being expensive. Thus despite having a climate very suitable for food production, Italy would only be able to produce a little more than it consumed and even then having to import many of those products it used to produce in the past, like citrus fruits – a clear failure of the autarky policy. The diet of the average Italian was filling, but bland, many Italians compensating those shortages by creating their own gardens for their personal needs.




Flea markets would be a common sight in Italian cities, town and villages, as would barter trading of any goods people had.


Bureaucracy and excessive centralization had also been the scourge of Italy, in a large part due to the fascist policy of territorial specialization. The general idea was the north turned into an industrial area providing the population with industrial goods, the south being an agricultural area providing it with foodstuffs, the colonies being a reservoir of natural resources – and an all-powerful central government in Rome overseeing and controlling both production and distribution, ensuring that production meets demand and disparities in wealth of the people employed in the less advanced parts of the economy (showing itself in wages) are compensated. This led to a constant inflation in government officials in various agencies and offices, tasked with control over all sorts of civil or economic activity. Starting a business, enrolling in a university, getting permits for constructions; all kinds of simple tasks had been made very complicated requiring a great time to be spent on getting permission, many inspectors checking all kinds of variables on which the final decision depended, bureaucracy being slow and inefficient, often requiring the decision being given at the highest level of authority, further extending all administrative procedures. The practice of employing family members in offices was commonplace, as was the creation of new posts just for someone who wished so – even the small Italian islands in the Aegean and Adriatic Seas being given region status and further divided into provinces and communes, just to provide administrative workers with convenient “retirement posts”, which offices would be bloated with employed friends and families. Since fascism, despite its calls for eliminating the differences between the various regions, had in fact enlarged them, also making agriculture heavily subsidized while simultaneously its industry was beginning to lag behind, Italy covered for all those losses from its revenue from the sales of oil and oil-derived products from north Africa. Italy had become the largest supplier of oil for central Europe after Portugal, its colonial policy being extremely harsh – the Arab and Berber population being almost completely expelled from North Africa over the decades, moved to either Egypt or Italian East Africa, and replaced with ethnic Italian settlers. Only about 300.000 of the original inhabitants remained there by 1966, those deemed possible to “Italianize”. Thus Italy had eliminated the problem of anti-colonial militias by eliminating any possible people who might have joined them.

With Mussolini dead, the world would finally take a second look on Italy, and realize it was just what many independent observers and emigrants had been saying it really was – just a corrupt dictatorship more concerned with the ruling clique being in power than the welfare of the people or even the ideology they proclaimed. The country’s power, severely overestimated in the past would be recognized as average, the predictions of its economy (expected to boom thanks to oil revenue being used to expand and modernize the industry) being drastically changed, now thought to continue to stagnate and the country to fall victim to dutch disease. Thus the period of détente would not be too kind for Italy, especially with its new leadership being bent on preserving the status quo, fulfilling “the legacy of Mussolini”. While Italy would continue its foreign policies assuming it had a position of strength, this strategy no longer worked – the opponents being much more willing to test Michelini’s resolve, who could not count on bringing the same authority to the table as his predecessor did, as they knew Italy’s power wasn’t what was claimed and Rome having less support from Berlin. Germany wasn’t as pro-Italian as before, using the period of détente concentrating on bettering relations with the western powers (while Italy continued to antagonize France) and moving its interest away from the Mediterranean to the wider world, often even “above the head” of Italy – when engaging in affairs in the Middle East and central Europe. Italy’s position would weaken in Croatia which would increasingly fall into a puppet position to Germany – Berlin being more often consulted than Zagreb. Also in Albania and Montenegro the Italians would find the population more demanding, but unlike Africa it could not introduce as viciously brutal methods there, due to German opposition. The counterweight it was within the Axis Powers to German domination would weaken, becoming reduced back again to a second-rate power both in European and global politics.



Italian Empire in 1966

[Belle Epocque]

Well ,this is my first post on alternatehistory.com, forgive me my eventualy mistakes, English is not my native language.

MSZ, indeed great timeline !

I always wonder how world would look without WWII .

I curious about internal development of Poland ITTL. Could you posted about it? I find interesting how Poles will handle with their minorites. I guess that "operation Volga" in 40's helped fix (at least partially) Ukrainian problem. But Ukrainian minority in Poland still remain in some numbers, so maybe it will be somekind Polish "Ulster"or "Basque Country" (however less bloody)? In OTL in 30's Poles have problems with Ukrainian terrorism.

I think Bellarusian minority with less national consciousness will be polonisated, especially with coming television and popular culture .

What about Jews? There will be some sort of antisemitic legislation enforced by Germany ? You posted previously about Jewish emigration from Central Europe to Palestine Mandate. What number of Jews sailed to Holly Land between 1938-65? I guess that will be exodus of Jewish people from Central Europe after formation of Israel, compared only with massive emigration from former Soviet Union in early 90's OTL?

I also interest about economy of enduring Second Polish Republic. It obiously will be much better without damages of WWII and comunist central planned economy, but how will look like comparing with other German Bloc states like Romania or Hungary? Development if military is also interesting. Did Poles create their own programs or due to Berlin Pact standarisation policy copy Germans? There will be any German/Berlin Pact military bases on Polish Soil? In case of Soviet invasion scenario Poland will be first to fight...

And finally politics. What about president Bielecki administration and policies? And how long he will occupy his position? Until death in 1982?

What about popular culture ITTL? With no WWII, there is no baby boomers generation, avoiding Vietnam War also there is no some point which could consolidate various potentially political and social movements. So it seems that in TTL not only America, but whole world will be more conservative. It could at some point impact fashion, architecture etc. Maybe 60's-80's looks more like OTL 40's-50's? Maybe from our point of viev atlernate reality will look like dieselpunk?

And movies . There will be some "James Bond" movies in your TL? It will be cool saw Sean Connery as 007 fighting both communism and nazis/facism. You mentioned in your previous uptade about Blofeld being connected with Abwehra. I already see that title "From Germany with Love" I also wonder about further development of cinema in Nazi Germany.

And I also find interesting development of American organasied crime. Without Second World War there will be still significant Italian and Jewish emigration from Europe to USA (especially with facist economy not handling well and no Hollocaust) which means both Cosa and Kosher Nostra will have available fresh blood from Old Continet. Probably no decline of Jewish presence in Mafia?

May you focus about that things in future uptades?

Originally Posted by MSZ

The obvious candidate in succeeding him in leadership was Arturo Michelini, the secretary of the National Fascist Party and the secretary of the Great Council of Fascism since 1954.

I am suprised that succesor of Duce is not Galeazzo Ciano. He held a higher position in Facist Regime than Michelini, especially being married with Mussolinis daugther. Maybe he was defeted in post Duce death power struggle?

And I guess this guy will be a new Italian prime minister after 1969?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgio_Almirante

O, and if we talking about Italy maybe in 1952 Olimpics Games will be held in Rome? It's 30th aniversary of March on Rome

[lukedalton]

And I guess this guy will be a new Italian prime minister after 1969?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgio_Almirante

Almirante will be probably one the reformists faction, but without any destruction of the pre-existent fascist leadership i don't see him gain the leaderships.

One of take in consideration is him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pino_Rauti

If you want someone more hardline and though

One of the key player will be probably him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Andreotti

why? because dictatorship or not, fascism or not, the divine giulio found always a way to the top (hey he is after all the older, smarter and evil brother of Kissinger and Cheney)

O, and if we talking about Italy maybe in 1952 Olimpics Games will be held in Rome? It's 30th aniversary of March on Rome

Damn they will spend lot and lot of money in pharaonic projects who will be uselless after and great show of doubtfoul taste and value to impress the world.

Edit: the latin name for the aircrat carrier is a little aackward and strage, maybe something like Falco (Hawk) or Nibbio (Kites) just to mantain a continuity with the original Aquila (eagle) and Sparviero (Sparrowhawk); or something out of a Roman weapon like Gladio

[Belle Epocque]

because dictatorship or not, fascism or not, the divine giulio found always a way to the top

I think seeking for potentially political leaders of Facist Italy and Nazi Germany we shouldn't limited to OTL far right activists. Many OTL mainstrem politicial becauese their different attitude toward nazism/facism caused by their raised under Goring or Mussolini regime or simply their opportunist nature could eventually became high level officials in III Reich and Facist Italy. See how easly OTL many high and medium level communists parties activists in Soviet Bloc after 1989 became socialdemocrats

Damn they will spend lot and lot of money in pharaonic projects who will be uselless after and great show of doubtfoul taste and value to impress the world.

1952 Olimpics opening ceremony in the new Colloseum building?

And If we mentioned architecture...

Well, I not sure that Goring will be willing to spend so much money for "Germania Project" . It was mostly Hitlers personal dream about creating a new Rome, capital of the great empire compared only with Roman Empire.

Maybe TTL Germania project will be completed in limited version?


Althought Soviets started architectural race in 40's completed Palace of Soviets, so fat Hermann can not allowed them for beating Aryans

It will suit his megalomanic nature.

Originally Posted by MSZ

Headquarters of the Gestapo in Berlin

I doubt that something like that could be build in III Reich, at least before Gorings death and period of liberalisation. It's too modernist. I guess it's from movie "Vaterland" ?

Check Speer design for Police HQ ( 12.45).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOXmrVR00RI

BTW, taking into consideration strong personal cult of Duce I imagine his mausoleum ...

Fuhrer also get his"temple", OTL Hitler want his mausoleum design similar to the Roman Pantheon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheon,_Rome

[omi]

nice update but wouldn't like in Germany and other fascist states the new generation try to reform the system in Italy to keep it great power status

[forget]

Great update may i ask why Finland is not part of the Fascist block?

[Lalli]

Originally Posted by forget

Great update may i ask why Finland is not part of the Fascist block?

On early 1930's fascists tried take power but they failed. In Finland democratic system was strong enough tó resists fascists and communists.

[Belle Epocque]

Originally Posted by Lalli

On early 1930's fascists tried take power but they failed. In Finland democratic system was strong enough tó resists fascists and communists.

Indeed. If I am right, Finland was parlamentarian democracy even being Axis Powers State during IIWW?

MSZ, I have a one more question. What about South Africa?

I guess Germany will sent significant military aid to South Africa, Rhodesia and Portugal struggling black guerillas ? Probably Germans will get some economic concessions as a form of payment? And It will be German military presence in SA? It's strategic place, especially with Suez Channel being easy to take over by Egyptians and Italian troops.