The Great Crusade (Reds! Part 3)
- Thread starter Aelita
- Start date
Does Britain try to do something like iccupy the land or what? In fact why can't the locals just take control for themselves? Same with Belgian Congo.
Perhaps it is not perfect, but nothing wrong with the principles of individualism it espouses
Locals aren't well armed or trained, I believe.
In theory, perhaps. Issue is, also in theory, Communism is also a good idea, but look how it's turned out.
...If you espouse objectivism why exactly are you in a timeline where left-communism takes off like wildfire? It's just a touch odd to me.
I would like you to please explain what exactly are you trying to get at because I'm still not understanding your point.
The union of south africa has its own guns to keep control and has no particular reason to leave the empire at this time.
The forces in the Belgian congo have more than enough guns to quash any rebellion at this time because the Congolese have none.
Similarly, any attempt at armed rebellion is going to suffer the fate the Indian National Army and Iraq's uprising did in OTL. It's going to get squashed because it's directly helping the Axis.
Objectivisim focus on self-interest as the source of morality and that anything that does not serve self-interest such as ultruism is irrational and immoral. A important counterargument is children- children require constant sacrifice and aid from their parents. Of course, Objectivists say that saving the human race is in one's self-interest but then again many children are unable to reproduce and in spite of it many parents continue to care of their children.
For instance saving a child that is not mine from being hit by a car by throwing myself in front of it, that act is done because of my concern for the child's life not because of any selfish desire as the child is not mine.
I honestly expected the war in Africa to be way worse. Why hasn't sub-Saharan Africa endured more conflict?
I'm saying if Britain would occupy the French African territories. And because of Germany's rule over France I expected the French African colonies to be in disarray.
Where are the potential flare ups?
The comintern has urged communist revolutionaries to work in a poplar front so that eliminates basically all of them from fighting the United Nations.
The nationalist revolutionaries aren't stupid enough to commit political suicide by timing their revolution to aid Adolf Hitler and are very wary about inadvertantly aiding the communists (better the Europeans than the Reds as far as they are concerned.)
So basically the only people who'd rise up are people who don't really care if they're supporting Hitler or not like the Boers who might pitch a fit when they learn that they're waging war to help the communists. But the Boers are going to get crushed like Iraq did in OTL and likely do much to discredit apartheid ideals in post-war south africa in doing so.
The Free French and the Nationalist French are constrained by terrible infrastructure and god awful logistics that would make fighting in central and western Africa with large units very difficult and we're going to cover Eastern Africa in a bit.
And this was with a Vichy France that was very clearly a German puppet, whereas the French State TTL at the very least seems like an equal and free partner of Germany.
There will be little in the way of chaos in the colonies outside of the Gaulist/Nationalist divide which will have pretty clear geographical boundaries.
There will be some conflict in French western Africa but it's generally small scale skirmishes; rarely involving more than a single division in a battle as the logistics are simply not good enough to support massive battles. Britain, America (from Liberia) and the Free French cooperate here but it's a sideshow conflict and America can't just tear away colonies from the Entente without asking if it wants to keep the Alliance friendly.
Where are the potential flare ups?
The comintern has urged communist revolutionaries to work in a poplar front so that eliminates basically all of them from fighting the United Nations.
The nationalist revolutionaries aren't stupid enough to commit political suicide by timing their revolution to aid Adolf Hitler and are very wary about inadvertantly aiding the communists (better the Europeans than the Reds as far as they are concerned.)
So basically the only people who'd rise up are people who don't really care if they're supporting Hitler or not like the Boers who might pitch a fit when they learn that they're waging war to help the communists. But the Boers are going to get crushed like Iraq did in OTL and likely do much to discredit apartheid ideals in post-war south africa in doing so.
The Free French and the Nationalist French are constrained by terrible infrastructure and god awful logistics that would make fighting in central and western Africa with large units very difficult and we're going to cover Eastern Africa in a bit.
And this was with a Vichy France that was very clearly a German puppet, whereas the French State TTL at the very least seems like an equal and free partner of Germany.
There will be little in the way of chaos in the colonies outside of the Gaulist/Nationalist divide which will have pretty clear geographical boundaries.
Why don't the independence movements like the communists?
Honestly I don't get it. How are they still able to keep their stuff together when their motherland is occupied?
France is not occupied. It's under a pro-axis government and Germany is fully respecting its territorial integrity. The way you're talking the French, Dutch, and Belgian Empires should have disintegrated the second Germany occupied them OTL. Hell the Belgians got occupied /twice/ by Germany for half decade long stretches and the Congo still remained with them. The Congo didn't split from Belgium until more than a decade after world war 2.
Nationalist movements tend to not care much for the internationalist message of communism. Much like how the Kuomintang fell apart after the downfall of the Qing Empire and Vietnam broke apart quickly after splitting from France or hell, how the Congo splintered into all these warring factions before the corpse of Belgian rule could even grow cold. A lot of these nationalist and liberal revolutionaries were very virulent anti-communists.
Last edited:
Pro-religion, unlike Communism usually, pro-rich people, been burned in the past....
It's been hinted at that post-war Americuba is a bit less broken, with a Kennedy succeeding MacArthur. (Which Kennedy, though?)
