Everything is a kink if you search deep enough. You may not get your sanity back though.
The Anglo-Saxon Social Model
- Thread starter Rattigan
- Start date
Everything is a kink if you search deep enough. You may not get your sanity back though.
@ThatRomanFanatic has clearly forgotten that Rule 34 always applies. There are no exceptions to Rule 34, no matter how hard people try.
Basically,
Britain: We will let you become independent when you are sufficiently Europeanised, old chap. In the meantime, another gin and tonic, if you would be so good.
France: We are the French, you will be assimilated. Your culture will adapt to be like ours. Resistance is futile.
Third Anglo-Boer War
The Empire Strikes Back: The Third Anglo-Boer War
HMS Columbia during the bombardment of the Port of Durban
HMS Invincible and her strike group shortly before the Battle of Salisbury Island
The repression in Zulu-Natal and the subsequent declaration of independence caused, as would be expected, a major international incident. For the Commonwealth, the Americans and the Soviets, the event was an excuse to cement their opposition to the apartheid regime, putting down or supporting numerous resolutions to that effect at the UN. Brazil and Japan, whose relations with South Africa had always been somewhat ambivalent, now began to consistently support these resolutions. China, reading the room, distanced itself from its African ally and began to consistently abstain from. By the end of 1986, France was the only permanent member who could be relied upon to provide their veto when needed. Following the failure of yet another resolution condemning the occupation and calling for UN-mediated peacekeeping in the region, the Commonwealth unilaterally recognised Zulu-Natal’s independence in November 1986 and immediately began semi-covert plans for military action. The United States also extended diplomatic recognition in December (although, as with the Commonwealth, it wasn’t clear what the practical effect of this was - it wasn’t as if they could open embassies) but the Kennedy Administration, generally skeptical of military action, did not join the Commonwealth in their war planning.
It has since been suggested that the protracted nature of the Commonwealth’s military preparations was part of an attempt to scare the South African government into withdrawing from the region. More likely, however, it was to give time to try and gain other allies to the cause, efforts which proved to be ultimately fruitless. Even African states who may have been sympathetic (Katanga, Ethiopia and Botswana were often mentioned as potential allies) seem to have been put off by the professed might of the South African war machine. On this occasion, it became clear, the Commonwealth would be taking its stand alone. Land forces built up along the Rhodesia-South African border and a Royal Naval taskforce of 127 ships was assembled and set sail from Aden on 17 January 1987. On 14 February, planes of the Fleet Air Arm commenced bombing raids on South African military installations on the coast. In response, the South African Air Force commenced bombing runs on the Commonwealth ships and the South African Navy put to sea from their base in Cape Town.
On 15 March, the old cruiser HMS Tiger (which was due to be scrapped in 1986 anyway until the Zulu-Natal crisis changed minds) was struck by a South African submarine and sunk with the loss of over 300 crewmen. The loss of the ship, the first Royal Naval vessel lost in action since 1945, hardened Commonwealth resolve and instilled arguably too great a sense of confidence in the South Africans. For the next week, South African ships attempted to enforce a notional exclusion zone around the Zulu-Natal coast but their ship numbers were simply not sufficient (their navy at the time consisted of 5 submarines, 3 frigates, 3 corvettes and 6 strike craft) to deter the Royal Navy’s expeditionary force, which at this time was based around four aircraft carrier strike groups and assorted other craft. On 23 March, a disastrous engagement with HMS Invincible and her support craft just off Salisbury Island resulted in the sinking of a South African submarine, corvette and frigate, as well as serious damage being inflicted on two strike craft who had engaged late in the battle. (The sinking of the submarine, the SAS Emily Hobhouse, with all hands later became a matter of controversy, with many skeptical of the sincerity of Commonwealth efforts to help survivors in what people suspected was revenge for the sinking of the Tiger.) Following this reverse, the remainder of the South African fleet withdrew to port, where they were bottled up by HMS Illustrious and her strike group, taking no further part in the fighting.
The sea campaign came to an end conclusively with the surrender of the Port of Durban to Commonwealth forces on 27 March. The following day, planes from HMS Illustrious bombed the Cape Town naval installation, sinking three strike craft and a corvette. At the same time, mechanised Commonwealth forces in Rhodesia commenced a land and air invasion, cutting through the Transvaal and towards Zulu-Natal. Over the next 10 days, Commonwealth forces converged on Zulu-Natal in a pincer movement, one advancing from their beachheads on the coast, the other marching south over land. Following the Battle of Nkandla - a particularly vicious engagement in which Maori units cleared a South African trenchline with bayonets, killing 457 for the loss of 44 of their own men - South African units began to surrender en masse, causing serious logistical problems for the Commonwealth. (Legend has it that video tapes of Maori soldiers sharpening their bayonets were dropped behind South African lines in order to encourage surrender.)
A ceasefire was agreed between the South Africans and the Commonwealth on 8 April, under which South Africa would withdraw what was left of its forces from Zulu-Natal, de facto recognising its independence. Its hand was also forced by uprisings of the non-Afrikaaner population which had sprung up across the rest of South Africa. The rebellions were encouraged by a radio station called the ‘Voice of Free Africa,’ which claimed that the rebellion was well-supported and that the rebels would soon be liberated from apartheid. The connection between this radio station and the Five Eyes Agency has since become a matter of controversy, with rumours, considering what came later, of a cover up.
Within the first two weeks, many of South Africa’s towns and cities fell to rebel forces. Participants of the uprising were a diverse mix of affiliations, including military mutineers, oppressed black farmers and workers and far-left groups. All hoped that the violence would receive international support and precipitate a coup d’etat in Pretoria. However, following initial victories, the revolution was held back from final success by its internal divisions as well as a lack of the anticipated Commonwealth support. Verwoerd was quietly moved aside in favour of hardliners led by Andries Treurnicht and the National Party retained control over Pretoria, Cape Town and Johannesburg, as well as the upper echelons of the army. The South African army - apparently more comfortable against badly-armed rebels than advanced mechanised soldiers - conducted a brutal crackdown, killing approximately 180,000 people and displacing nearly 2,000,000 more.
There was some criticism, then and since, of the Commonwealth, as they chose to allow the apartheid regime to remain in power rather than attempt to push on and occupy the entire country. In his memoirs, published in 1994, Rodgers argued that such a course of action would have fractured Commonwealth unity (and the general international support for the Commonwealth against apartheid) and have lead to many unnecessary political and human costs. Political papers from across the Commonwealth, published in 2016-17 under the 30-year rule, revealed the difference of opinion both within and between the governments of the member states.
On 22 April 1987, South Africa accepted the independence of its former province and Mangosuthu Buthelezi and Helen Zuzman were declared the interim President and Vice President, respectively, of the United Republic of Zulu-Natal ahead of elections to be held in three months’ time. Five days later, on 27 April, the bulk of Commonwealth troops began to withdraw from the region, leaving a few troops and ships to ensure that South Africa kept their promise.
HMS Columbia during the bombardment of the Port of Durban
HMS Invincible and her strike group shortly before the Battle of Salisbury Island
The repression in Zulu-Natal and the subsequent declaration of independence caused, as would be expected, a major international incident. For the Commonwealth, the Americans and the Soviets, the event was an excuse to cement their opposition to the apartheid regime, putting down or supporting numerous resolutions to that effect at the UN. Brazil and Japan, whose relations with South Africa had always been somewhat ambivalent, now began to consistently support these resolutions. China, reading the room, distanced itself from its African ally and began to consistently abstain from. By the end of 1986, France was the only permanent member who could be relied upon to provide their veto when needed. Following the failure of yet another resolution condemning the occupation and calling for UN-mediated peacekeeping in the region, the Commonwealth unilaterally recognised Zulu-Natal’s independence in November 1986 and immediately began semi-covert plans for military action. The United States also extended diplomatic recognition in December (although, as with the Commonwealth, it wasn’t clear what the practical effect of this was - it wasn’t as if they could open embassies) but the Kennedy Administration, generally skeptical of military action, did not join the Commonwealth in their war planning.
It has since been suggested that the protracted nature of the Commonwealth’s military preparations was part of an attempt to scare the South African government into withdrawing from the region. More likely, however, it was to give time to try and gain other allies to the cause, efforts which proved to be ultimately fruitless. Even African states who may have been sympathetic (Katanga, Ethiopia and Botswana were often mentioned as potential allies) seem to have been put off by the professed might of the South African war machine. On this occasion, it became clear, the Commonwealth would be taking its stand alone. Land forces built up along the Rhodesia-South African border and a Royal Naval taskforce of 127 ships was assembled and set sail from Aden on 17 January 1987. On 14 February, planes of the Fleet Air Arm commenced bombing raids on South African military installations on the coast. In response, the South African Air Force commenced bombing runs on the Commonwealth ships and the South African Navy put to sea from their base in Cape Town.
On 15 March, the old cruiser HMS Tiger (which was due to be scrapped in 1986 anyway until the Zulu-Natal crisis changed minds) was struck by a South African submarine and sunk with the loss of over 300 crewmen. The loss of the ship, the first Royal Naval vessel lost in action since 1945, hardened Commonwealth resolve and instilled arguably too great a sense of confidence in the South Africans. For the next week, South African ships attempted to enforce a notional exclusion zone around the Zulu-Natal coast but their ship numbers were simply not sufficient (their navy at the time consisted of 5 submarines, 3 frigates, 3 corvettes and 6 strike craft) to deter the Royal Navy’s expeditionary force, which at this time was based around four aircraft carrier strike groups and assorted other craft. On 23 March, a disastrous engagement with HMS Invincible and her support craft just off Salisbury Island resulted in the sinking of a South African submarine, corvette and frigate, as well as serious damage being inflicted on two strike craft who had engaged late in the battle. (The sinking of the submarine, the SAS Emily Hobhouse, with all hands later became a matter of controversy, with many skeptical of the sincerity of Commonwealth efforts to help survivors in what people suspected was revenge for the sinking of the Tiger.) Following this reverse, the remainder of the South African fleet withdrew to port, where they were bottled up by HMS Illustrious and her strike group, taking no further part in the fighting.
The sea campaign came to an end conclusively with the surrender of the Port of Durban to Commonwealth forces on 27 March. The following day, planes from HMS Illustrious bombed the Cape Town naval installation, sinking three strike craft and a corvette. At the same time, mechanised Commonwealth forces in Rhodesia commenced a land and air invasion, cutting through the Transvaal and towards Zulu-Natal. Over the next 10 days, Commonwealth forces converged on Zulu-Natal in a pincer movement, one advancing from their beachheads on the coast, the other marching south over land. Following the Battle of Nkandla - a particularly vicious engagement in which Maori units cleared a South African trenchline with bayonets, killing 457 for the loss of 44 of their own men - South African units began to surrender en masse, causing serious logistical problems for the Commonwealth. (Legend has it that video tapes of Maori soldiers sharpening their bayonets were dropped behind South African lines in order to encourage surrender.)
A ceasefire was agreed between the South Africans and the Commonwealth on 8 April, under which South Africa would withdraw what was left of its forces from Zulu-Natal, de facto recognising its independence. Its hand was also forced by uprisings of the non-Afrikaaner population which had sprung up across the rest of South Africa. The rebellions were encouraged by a radio station called the ‘Voice of Free Africa,’ which claimed that the rebellion was well-supported and that the rebels would soon be liberated from apartheid. The connection between this radio station and the Five Eyes Agency has since become a matter of controversy, with rumours, considering what came later, of a cover up.
Within the first two weeks, many of South Africa’s towns and cities fell to rebel forces. Participants of the uprising were a diverse mix of affiliations, including military mutineers, oppressed black farmers and workers and far-left groups. All hoped that the violence would receive international support and precipitate a coup d’etat in Pretoria. However, following initial victories, the revolution was held back from final success by its internal divisions as well as a lack of the anticipated Commonwealth support. Verwoerd was quietly moved aside in favour of hardliners led by Andries Treurnicht and the National Party retained control over Pretoria, Cape Town and Johannesburg, as well as the upper echelons of the army. The South African army - apparently more comfortable against badly-armed rebels than advanced mechanised soldiers - conducted a brutal crackdown, killing approximately 180,000 people and displacing nearly 2,000,000 more.
There was some criticism, then and since, of the Commonwealth, as they chose to allow the apartheid regime to remain in power rather than attempt to push on and occupy the entire country. In his memoirs, published in 1994, Rodgers argued that such a course of action would have fractured Commonwealth unity (and the general international support for the Commonwealth against apartheid) and have lead to many unnecessary political and human costs. Political papers from across the Commonwealth, published in 2016-17 under the 30-year rule, revealed the difference of opinion both within and between the governments of the member states.
On 22 April 1987, South Africa accepted the independence of its former province and Mangosuthu Buthelezi and Helen Zuzman were declared the interim President and Vice President, respectively, of the United Republic of Zulu-Natal ahead of elections to be held in three months’ time. Five days later, on 27 April, the bulk of Commonwealth troops began to withdraw from the region, leaving a few troops and ships to ensure that South Africa kept their promise.
Last edited:
So how much support did the Commonwealth provide to the various rebel groups in South Africa? Does Zulu-Natal support them?
How much more batshit insane can the Apartheid regime get? Oppressing both Blacks and Anglos is a sure-fire way to piss off the world and they paid for it.
Mostly that. Also, on the basis of the sunk costs fallacy, countries do often stick by an ally even when it’s clear that that ally is a liability.
It supplied weapons and funds but the Commonwealth’s political leadership chickened out of following up the uprising with an invasion because they were worried about South Africa’s chemical weapons stocks.
A lot of the displaced will be Anglos finally leaving the country. The South African government basically stuck loads of them in trucks and drove them to the border with Zulu-Natal as a final middle finger to the new country. It should be said that the government is happy to have Anglos around if they can demonstrate their loyalty: Clive Derby-Lewis is a member of the legislature, for example.
From what I remember of your update on TTL's postwar France, I also imagine that there's a not-insubstantial bloc of French right-wingers that supports South Africa for ideological reasons, seeing it as a bastion of "white civilization" on the Dark Continent. You have said, after all, that the mainstream right in France includes a number of groups that would be considered far-right in OTL, including unreconstructed white supremacists, anti-Semites, authoritarians, and imperial nostalgics. Three-party system aside, I imagine that French politics are seen by many as similar to OTL's American politics: a right-wing outlier in a Western world that's otherwise embraced social democracy.
Gorbachev in Europe (1985-1991)
The Last Man in Europe: Mikhail Gorbachev and the Final Chance for Soviet Reform
Gorbachev's official portrait as Senior Adviser to the Government of the Commonwealth of Independent States
In February 1984, Yuri Andropov died in Petrograd, ending a 15-month tenure as Soviet Premier. His replacement was Eduard Shevardnadze, who, with the support of the Party Chairman Nikolai Ryzhkov (who assumed this role in July 1985, having previously been Minister for Finance since September 1979) sought to embark on a process of domestic and imperial reform in the Soviet Union. To this end, they appointed Mikhail Gorbachev to the position of Senior Adviser to the Government of the Commonwealth of Independent States (effectively its governor) in 1985, a position he would hold until 1989.
During his time in the CIS, Gorbachev became known as the ‘European Adviser’ for his repeated attempts to pass legislation to improve the lots of the European citizens. This aroused a certain degree of praise but also considerable controversy. The most notable example would be the legal reforms introduced in 1988. Commonly known by the name, ‘Perestroika,’ that Gorbachev game them, the reforms were designed to introduce transparency into the CIS legal system, granting the native Europeans more legal rights. In particular, they would have increased the potential for Europeans to become judges (previously the higher ranks of the judiciary were reserved for Soviet officials) and even allow European judges to handle criminal cases involving Soviet citizens charged with a crime in the CIS.
The proposed reforms immediately created a storm of controversy, led by Soviet factory and industry owners in the CIS. In reference to the rapes of Soviet women during the Bucharest Mutiny of 1968-69, it was alleged that Soviet women and girls would have to face humiliation should they be forced to appear before European judges in the case of rape. The Soviet press in the CIS (which was free to criticise the actual Soviet governors of the CIS, even if they weren’t allowed to criticise either their basis for being there or the government of the USSR) spread rumours about European judges abusing their powers to enslave Soviet women, which raised considerable opposition in the Soviet Union itself. Gennady Yanayev, the head of the Soviet trades union organisation, made his opposition to the reforms clear. They eventually came into force in May 1989 but with a number of notable changes, including allowing Soviets to demand a Soviet, rather than a European, judge.
Following the fallout of the Perestroika reforms, Gorbachev was recalled to Petrograd in July 1989, where he was made Governor of Murmansk and his career dwindled into bureaucratic obscurity. Yanayev became his replacement and put a halt to most of his predecessor’s proposals. The one exception was a series of reforms to tenancy arrangements which were passed in 1990, mostly in response to a series of strikes and protests in western Poland in 1973-76. Gorbachev had initiated a review of tenancy law and, when the report was published, Yenayev accepted the recommendations mostly in full.
Although in legislative terms probably a failure, Gorbachev’s tenure in the CIS was revealling for the way it showed the limits of the governing system the Soviets had imposed on the region. The power of the system was too entrenched amongst the Soviet elite in the country (as well as their European Uncle Tom allies) and Soviet rule, it was now clear, could not be reformed away, at least in the short term. This was an important victory for the conservative faction of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union itself known as the ‘die-hards.’
Following Ryzhkov’s re-appointment as Chairman at the Party Congress of July 1990, surviving an attempt to depose him, the die-hards turned their attention to extra-party means. Using their supporters in the higher ranks of the army, the die-hards conducted a coup in August 1991 that ousted Ryzhkov, Shevardnadze and Abalkin (the Finance Minister), installing Vladimir Kryuchkov as Premier and Yanayev as Chairman. Following the coup, widespread protests began in Petrograd. Led by students and young people, the protestors called for greater political accountability, freedom of the press and democracy. At the height of the protests, about 1,000,000 people had assembled in Saint Isaac’s Square.
As the protests developed, the authorities were initially hesitant in responding, concerned about upsetting their relatively-tenuous control over the Communist Party. By September, however, Yanayev and the other senior leaders of the Community Party resolved to use force. Declaring martial law on 27 September, the full force of the Red Army was unleashed on the protestors. Over the next seven months of violent repression, thousands of people were murdered and incarcerated. Exact figures are ultimately unknown: official Soviet estimates put the figure at around 150; unofficial estimates compiled by the British embassy in Petrograd put the death toll for the whole of the 1991-92 repression at around 150,000 dead and a further 35,000 arrested. Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kravchuk - both politicians associated with the reformist wing of the Communist Party - were arrested on, at best, dubious charges, and sent to prison camps in Siberia. Gorbachev disappeared from his Murmansk flat and it would be three years before the Soviet authorities admitted he was dead.
Gorbachev's official portrait as Senior Adviser to the Government of the Commonwealth of Independent States
In February 1984, Yuri Andropov died in Petrograd, ending a 15-month tenure as Soviet Premier. His replacement was Eduard Shevardnadze, who, with the support of the Party Chairman Nikolai Ryzhkov (who assumed this role in July 1985, having previously been Minister for Finance since September 1979) sought to embark on a process of domestic and imperial reform in the Soviet Union. To this end, they appointed Mikhail Gorbachev to the position of Senior Adviser to the Government of the Commonwealth of Independent States (effectively its governor) in 1985, a position he would hold until 1989.
During his time in the CIS, Gorbachev became known as the ‘European Adviser’ for his repeated attempts to pass legislation to improve the lots of the European citizens. This aroused a certain degree of praise but also considerable controversy. The most notable example would be the legal reforms introduced in 1988. Commonly known by the name, ‘Perestroika,’ that Gorbachev game them, the reforms were designed to introduce transparency into the CIS legal system, granting the native Europeans more legal rights. In particular, they would have increased the potential for Europeans to become judges (previously the higher ranks of the judiciary were reserved for Soviet officials) and even allow European judges to handle criminal cases involving Soviet citizens charged with a crime in the CIS.
The proposed reforms immediately created a storm of controversy, led by Soviet factory and industry owners in the CIS. In reference to the rapes of Soviet women during the Bucharest Mutiny of 1968-69, it was alleged that Soviet women and girls would have to face humiliation should they be forced to appear before European judges in the case of rape. The Soviet press in the CIS (which was free to criticise the actual Soviet governors of the CIS, even if they weren’t allowed to criticise either their basis for being there or the government of the USSR) spread rumours about European judges abusing their powers to enslave Soviet women, which raised considerable opposition in the Soviet Union itself. Gennady Yanayev, the head of the Soviet trades union organisation, made his opposition to the reforms clear. They eventually came into force in May 1989 but with a number of notable changes, including allowing Soviets to demand a Soviet, rather than a European, judge.
Following the fallout of the Perestroika reforms, Gorbachev was recalled to Petrograd in July 1989, where he was made Governor of Murmansk and his career dwindled into bureaucratic obscurity. Yanayev became his replacement and put a halt to most of his predecessor’s proposals. The one exception was a series of reforms to tenancy arrangements which were passed in 1990, mostly in response to a series of strikes and protests in western Poland in 1973-76. Gorbachev had initiated a review of tenancy law and, when the report was published, Yenayev accepted the recommendations mostly in full.
Although in legislative terms probably a failure, Gorbachev’s tenure in the CIS was revealling for the way it showed the limits of the governing system the Soviets had imposed on the region. The power of the system was too entrenched amongst the Soviet elite in the country (as well as their European Uncle Tom allies) and Soviet rule, it was now clear, could not be reformed away, at least in the short term. This was an important victory for the conservative faction of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union itself known as the ‘die-hards.’
Following Ryzhkov’s re-appointment as Chairman at the Party Congress of July 1990, surviving an attempt to depose him, the die-hards turned their attention to extra-party means. Using their supporters in the higher ranks of the army, the die-hards conducted a coup in August 1991 that ousted Ryzhkov, Shevardnadze and Abalkin (the Finance Minister), installing Vladimir Kryuchkov as Premier and Yanayev as Chairman. Following the coup, widespread protests began in Petrograd. Led by students and young people, the protestors called for greater political accountability, freedom of the press and democracy. At the height of the protests, about 1,000,000 people had assembled in Saint Isaac’s Square.
As the protests developed, the authorities were initially hesitant in responding, concerned about upsetting their relatively-tenuous control over the Communist Party. By September, however, Yanayev and the other senior leaders of the Community Party resolved to use force. Declaring martial law on 27 September, the full force of the Red Army was unleashed on the protestors. Over the next seven months of violent repression, thousands of people were murdered and incarcerated. Exact figures are ultimately unknown: official Soviet estimates put the figure at around 150; unofficial estimates compiled by the British embassy in Petrograd put the death toll for the whole of the 1991-92 repression at around 150,000 dead and a further 35,000 arrested. Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kravchuk - both politicians associated with the reformist wing of the Communist Party - were arrested on, at best, dubious charges, and sent to prison camps in Siberia. Gorbachev disappeared from his Murmansk flat and it would be three years before the Soviet authorities admitted he was dead.
So the USSR is OTL's PRC, and Petrograd was their Tiananmen Square. I think you either stated or implied earlier (certainly by having Alexei Kosygin as General Secretary from 1960-75) that the USSR underwent market reforms at some point. And at various points, we see that this liberalization did not extend to politics.
Come to think of it, we've never gotten a full update on the USSR outside their domination of their Eastern European puppets.
Come to think of it, we've never gotten a full update on the USSR outside their domination of their Eastern European puppets.