Could the Western Bloc have gone authoritarian during the Cold War?

[TerranGames]

This question is partially inspired by Maponus's The Way The Wind Blows TL (There, the only hard POD is that De Gaulle dies just before May 58' kicks off, so the generals establish an authoritarian regime in France, but that's about it). Basically, would it be possible for the core powers of the Western Bloc to degenerate into authoritarian states (by the 2010s, at least)? Because I know there were some Western Bloc nations that were authoritarian at least for some time during the Cold War: Spain, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Brazil, Argentina, etc, but the core powers never were.

They don't have to be full-on military dictatorships or anything, they could be more like Turkey, where technically the elections are free and contested. The biggest problem I'm seeing is America, since they were riding pretty high and dry during the 20th century, and without edging too much into current politics, it's institutions very, very strong, and are continuing to hold up even against active attempts to dismantle them. So IDK. Would it be possible to pull this off with a post-1945 POD?

Thanks!

 

[sampleswift]

Even with worse McCarthyism, I don't see it for America (discounting current politics of course). Britain is also a big obstacle with strong democratic institutions. You would probably have to go back to the Great Depression (and IIRC democracy wasn't even that challenged in the Great Depression in the USA!). So no, I don't think so.

 

[Tanc49]

I'd say that when the core countries had no qualm about killing some political opponents (edited), invading countries that seem to deviate from the line (Latin America for the US, Western Africa for France) and such things, democracy through the 60's to 80's was pretty flawed in Western Countries, at least for France, the US, and AFAIK Italy

 

[Sam R.]

Uhh. Italy and Japan had single party governments. The Cold War kicked off properly because of Greek and Korean junta mismanagement. Spain and Portugal were fascist. France had coups when they were militarily repressing French citizens in France )admittedly outside hexagon) and a civil war which restricted freedoms impacted the BRD and UK. So for Belgium Holland Denmark Norway and Sweden?

 

[Raferty]

It's very plausible some of these states would go that direction. All at one point or another, especially during WW2, acted authoritarian. The era up until the OPEC crisis was one of powerful states that often micromanaged both economic life and civil society.

While not totalitarian, this wasn't exactly liberalism.

But do I think Western bloc states would be ideologically authoritarian en masse rather than practically at times? No. Fascism and Communism were discredited ideologies, as was absolute monarchism, and held little appeal in most western states. You'll note that the most openly authoritarian state of the period in the west, Spain, continually carried out purges against both true believing fascists and absolute monarchists, and was a regime that liberalized over time both economically (especially post 1956) and politically

 

[Garrison]

This question is partially inspired by Maponus's The Way The Wind Blows TL (There, the only hard POD is that De Gaulle dies just before May 58' kicks off, so the generals establish an authoritarian regime in France, but that's about it). Basically, would it be possible for the core powers of the Western Bloc to degenerate into authoritarian states (by the 2010s, at least)? Because I know there were some Western Bloc nations that were authoritarian at least for some time during the Cold War: Spain, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Brazil, Argentina, etc, but the core powers never were.

They don't have to be full-on military dictatorships or anything, they could be more like Turkey, where technically the elections are free and contested. The biggest problem I'm seeing is America, since they were riding pretty high and dry during the 20th century, and without edging too much into current politics, it's institutions very, very strong, and are continuing to hold up even against active attempts to dismantle them. So IDK. Would it be possible to pull this off with a post-1945 POD?

Thanks!

There's just no post war impetus for this and given authoritarianism has been discredited by WW2 its really unlikely. The Cold War meant the west was willing to turn blind eye to right wing dictators in various parts of the world, they weren't going to tolerate one at home.

 

[Sam R.]

Except DeGaulle or Greek generals or Salazar or Franco or Rhee or

Authoritarian is an a grade shitty theoretical category in foreign policy and I’d argue that continental attempts like Arendt do nothing to save it as a way to talk about state function.

Now rule of law is a useful category

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I think about Darlan-Salan-Challe's hardline France from For All Time often. (Bokassa's empire is a little too all-out dystopian to be considered.) I'm surprised there's not more timelines that similarly explore postwar rise of Gallic fascism based on the OAS guys. I made a thread without many replies:

What if France is snubbed in WWII and turns revanchist like post-WWI Italy?

Seems like the Anglo-Americans were intent on snubbing the French leaders during WWII (both de Gaulle and Darlan) and the French also maintained a supercilious attitude in kind. So what if those perceived slights were actually something more substantiative, and France gets denied at the peace...

www.alternatehistory.com

Maybe French politics are too tenuous to examine in detail.

Uhh. Italy and Japan had single party governments. The Cold War kicked off properly because of Greek and Korean junta mismanagement. Spain and Portugal were fascist. France had coups when they were militarily repressing French citizens in France )admittedly outside hexagon) and a civil war which restricted freedoms impacted the BRD and UK. So for Belgium Holland Denmark Norway and Sweden?

Except DeGaulle or Greek generals or Salazar or Franco or Rhee or

I'm probably operating under too rosy an idea of DeGaulle but isn't there at least a difference between administrative authoritarianism (that is, governing like a strongman) and actively suppressing civil liberties that impact quality of life for the average citizen? Call it Singapore vs. China. Then again, this is probably also too-rosy a picture of Singapore, which is repressive in ways beyond PAP electoral domination.

I also don't think Italy was single-party. Stacked by NATO, yes, but the DC didn't create a one-party state like the LDP.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Regarding the Netherlands going right-wing nationalist or fascist, I'd like to point at this really informative thread, particularly @HJ Tulp 's eye-opening posts about Wilhelmina's plans to essentially pull a Meiji with the Dutch resistance, which was foiled in OTL because collaborators came to power. Which sort of suggests that the government we historically got wasn't so great anyway?

Would the Netherlands have fallen to the Soviet camp & would it have been so bad, if the US unequivocally supported Indonesian independence in 1945?

What if Australia and the United States unequivocally recognized the independence of the Indonesian republic from VJ-Day on, over the entire former Dutch East Indies? What if the two countries opposed Dutch reclamation of the territory from the very beginning and supported immediate...

www.alternatehistory.com

Also saw some great conversations about it alternate Dutch nationalist movements at the time (turns out the NSB was far from the only Dutch fascist party), though more in the context of decolonization of the Dutch East Indies and the rest of SE Asia.

8mm to the Left: If Hitler Died in 1923

Yeah it would be interesting to see how it goes if the Malayans go full fascist. Well, since actual fascism is only limited to Italy and its sphere ITTL, maybe they would go Statist instead, inspired by the Japanese Showa Statism.

www.alternatehistory.com

Would love to see more discussion about alternate Dutch governments after WWII. @Kosaki_MacTavish @gradje

 

[Tanc49]

m probably operating under too rosy an idea of DeGaulle but isn't there at least a difference between administrative authoritarianism (that is, governing like a strongman) and actively suppressing civil liberties that impact quality of life for the average citizen? Call it Singapore vs. China. Then again, this is probably also too-rosy a picture of Singapore, which is repressive in ways beyond PAP electoral domination

Let's start with the fact that de Gaulle was a democratic leader who left power peacefully and seems to have mostly respected elections, at least in continental France. He could have been a dictator, but turned it down twice.

That said, he definitely came to power in a military coup in 1958. To quote OSS117

Et comment vous appelez un pays qui a comme président un militaire avec les pleins pouvoirs, une police secrète, une seule chaîne de télévision et dont toute l’information est contrôlée par l’État ?

How do you call a country whose president is a soldier with full executive powers, a secret police, and one TV channel where the whole information is controlled by the state?

Even in France, there was the Service d'Action Civique which was basically a paramilitary militia which ended up associated with gangsters and harassed some opponents, particularly unionists and communists

And as said, state propaganda was fairly heavy

 

[gradje]

Also saw some great conversations about it alternate Dutch nationalist movements at the time (turns out the NSB was far from the only Dutch fascist party), though more in the context of decolonization of the Dutch East Indies and the rest of SE Asia.

8mm to the Left: If Hitler Died in 1923

Yeah it would be interesting to see how it goes if the Malayans go full fascist. Well, since actual fascism is only limited to Italy and its sphere ITTL, maybe they would go Statist instead, inspired by the Japanese Showa Statism.

www.alternatehistory.com

Would love to see more discussion about alternate Dutch governments after WWII. @Kosaki_MacTavish @gradje

For post-WW2 stuff I can think of 2 relevant things. Both are coups that relate to Indonesia in the immediate post war period. The first is a planned coup by Raymond "the Turk" Westerling and Prince Bernhard to overthrow the Indonesian government with mercenaries and probably Moluccans. This way Dutch rule would be reestablished through a viceroyalty probably headed by Prince Bernhard, the adventurer that he was. Secondly, there was a planned coup to overthrow the first PvdA (post WW2 Dutch social democratic labour party) prime minister. A very Harold Wilsonesque affair tho I am not aware of the precise nature of the rumours of a coup to overthrow him. Basically, Willem Drees was going to concede the independence of Indonesia. It's one of the reasons why Wilhelmina abdicated, so that her daughter would be queen when that happened, she didn't want to concede. The whole affair is rather farcical. If memory serves me correct, the coup was called off at the last moment, but the men sent out to carry out the hit on Drees were not informed because it was called off so late. Only because of sheer circumstance were they unable to carry out the murder of Drees, think at the level of "he wasn't home."

Regarding the Netherlands going right-wing nationalist or fascist, I'd like to point at this really informative thread, particularly @HJ Tulp 's eye-opening posts about Wilhelmina's plans to essentially pull a Meiji with the Dutch resistance, which was foiled in OTL because collaborators came to power. Which sort of suggests that the government we historically got wasn't so great anyway?

I can think off two figures to whom this applies directly. First is PM Jan de Quay, who was one of the founders and leader of the moderate (as in they weren't nazi's) collaborationist Nederlandsche Unie. Second is Joseph Luns, minister without portfolio and of foreign affairs, as well as secretary general of NATO, who from 1933 to 1936 was a member of the NSB

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I can think off two figures to whom this applies directly. First is PM Jan de Quay, who was one of the founders and leader of the moderate (as in they weren't nazi's) collaborationist Nederlandsche Unie. Second is Joseph Luns, minister without portfolio and of foreign affairs, as well as secretary general of NATO, who from 1933 to 1936 was a member of the NSB

I think @HJ Tulp was also referring to a coup attempt by former PM Gerbrandy.

Damn the Dutch were just as bad as the French in trying to preserve their colonial empire. Also reminds me of the Belgians supporting the Katangans.

 

[Kosaki_MacTavish]

Would love to see more discussion about alternate Dutch governments after WWII. @Kosaki_MacTavish @gradje

Besides the talks about Westerling, i can't add much since i'm not that well-versed in Dutch history after WW2 beyond the hold conservative Catholics had in the government and constantly sabotaging whatever goodwill Drees and his social democrat compatriots had towards Indonesia, worsening the relations between the two and making Sukarno snapped, quitting the Commonwealth, expelling the Dutch and Indos, and finally declared martial law in 1959 after 7 successive prime ministers for the last 9 years and 2 ongoing rebellions since 1957.

 

[raharris1973]

Malcolm X.

Killed by a follower of a sectarian rival?

 

[Seandineen]

For post-WW2 stuff I can think of 2 relevant things. Both are coups that relate to Indonesia in the immediate post war period. The first is a planned coup by Raymond "the Turk" Westerling and Prince Bernhard to overthrow the Indonesian government with mercenaries and probably Moluccans. This way Dutch rule would be reestablished through a viceroyalty probably headed by Prince Bernhard, the adventurer that he was. Secondly, there was a planned coup to overthrow the first PvdA (post WW2 Dutch social democratic labour party) prime minister. A very Harold Wilsonesque affair tho I am not aware of the precise nature of the rumours of a coup to overthrow him. Basically, Willem Drees was going to concede the independence of Indonesia. It's one of the reasons why Wilhelmina abdicated, so that her daughter would be queen when that happened, she didn't want to concede. The whole affair is rather farcical. If memory serves me correct, the coup was called off at the last moment, but the men sent out to carry out the hit on Drees were not informed because it was called off so late. Only because of sheer circumstance were they unable to carry out the murder of Drees, think at the level of "he wasn't home."

I can think off two figures to whom this applies directly. First is PM Jan de Quay, who was one of the founders and leader of the moderate (as in they weren't nazi's) collaborationist Nederlandsche Unie. Second is Joseph Luns, minister without portfolio and of foreign affairs, as well as secretary general of NATO, who from 1933 to 1936 was a member of the NSB

If the Westerling coup came off, were the Moluucans going to become part of the Netherlands, or get there pet republic of the South?

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Besides the talks about Westerling, i can't add much since i'm not that well-versed in Dutch history after WW2 beyond the hold conservative Catholics had in the government and constantly sabotaging whatever goodwill Drees and his social democrat compatriots had towards Indonesia, worsening the relations between the two and making Sukarno snapped, quitting the Commonwealth, expelling the Dutch and Indos, and finally declared martial law in 1959 after 7 successive prime ministers for the last 9 years and 2 ongoing rebellions since 1957.

Decolonization is a continuous sad story of botched miscommunication and bad faith, sounds like.

So in the same vein as the French and Dutch couping themselves or trying to, to hold on to their colonies, what if Britain experiences troubles over really wanting to hold on to India? Like military figures and colonial hardliners assassinating each other?

Could the above apply to North Ireland or Rhodesia or any other British colony?

 

[alspug]

If you look at history it is apparent that the natural order of things is for governments to be authoritiarian and it is when those same governments become tyrannical to the point people are willing to die to gain freedom that Coups and revolutions happen. Some coups occur from within while others are sponsored by enemies.

The 20th century in it' early years witnessed some of the worst authoritarian governments in recorded history, the authority was not worse but the process of said authoritarian action was industrialised with the result that people would not die in batches in different villages but be herded like cattle to a central execution plant and then killed. This action was witnessed by enough to make bringing in full authoritarian regimes in the west almost impossible. Even the steps towards excessive government got called out by media and veterans alike. The later 20th century witnessed the passing of those who witnessed the worst of Hitler, Stalin and Mao along with others and the sad ignorance of allowing unfettered government expansion and censorship.

Getting back to the original question the Western World could be imperialistic in outlook in an attempt to control the expansion of communism, it could do lots of things in secret but not work against it's own citizens as such without significant backlash.

An American President was forced to resign for acting in a manner that is impermissable in a democratic country. So excessive control of public was impossible.

 

[Kosaki_MacTavish]

If the Westerling coup came off, were the Moluucans going to become part of the Netherlands, or get there pet republic of the South?

Probably its own state as envisioned by Christiaan Soumokil, but would stayed inside the United States of Indonesia as another constituent state.

At that point (1950), only the reactionary and fascists who would demanded the pre-1942 conditions of Indonesia to be returned.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Probably its own state as envisioned by Christiaan Soumokil, but would stayed inside the United States of Indonesia as another constituent state.

So what was the USI about besides being a Dutch puppet and a rival to the Republic? How did the government differ and its center of power was not Java, making it dominated by different cultures and languages right

 

[Kosaki_MacTavish]

So what was the USI about besides being a Dutch puppet and a rival to the Republic? How did the government differ and its center of power was not Java, making it dominated by different cultures and languages right

USI is the continuation of Dutch East Indies, with the Republic is one part of the state along with East Indonesia and 18 other entities. The capital of the federal government is still at Jakarta (another part of the state). Also, the other 17 entities are not self-sustainable without the protection of the Dutch because of lack of territorial integrity, with the angry populace demanded them to be united with the Republic, especially after the Westerling's coup in January 1950 which makes their government subsequently dissolved themselves in March-April. The State of East Indonesia (a republic) and East Sumatra (a federative sultanates like British Malaya) held long enough until August 1950 as they're the first areas liberated by the Allies in the end of WW2 and has garnered enough supporters to make the government sustainable, despite the presence of the pro-Republican groups at its government.

Spoiler: Backstory for the idea of Indonesian independence under the Dutch Commonwealth

Originally the idea was envisioned by Hubertus Johannes van Mook at the Indies Student Congress at Leiden in 1917, designed as a stepping stone towards a complete independence from Den Haag (Netherlands) while remained in a commonwealth with them under the Dutch Crown along with Dutch West Indies (Surinam and Curacao). This idea, while is not as radical as the demands of complete independence from the Kingdom altogether by the Indonesians, is still considered too revolutionary, and it didn't go anywhere until 1944. Especially after the 1926 Communist Rebellion which got the Indonesian nationalists jailed in West Papua. Even the parallel ideas of it, like a 10-year "Transitional Period" akin to the Philippine Commonwealth Act enacted in 1935 demanded in a petition by Soetardjo Kartohadikoesoemo in 1936, got shot down by the Dutch government in Den Haag. Then WW2 came and only then the Dutch government-in-exile started to think about the proposal, but as they're exiled to London they decided to wait until the liberation of the Netherlands to talk about it again. Alas, the Japanese came and swept it all away, and then Soekarno-Hatta proclaimed Indonesian independence in August 1945.

Not knowing the internal workings of the Japanese occupational government, Van Mook (now leading the government as Lieutenant Governor-General after the fall of Java) got a freer hand to realize his ambitions for the future Indonesian state, backed by both the Americans (especially President Roosevelt who designed the Atlantic Charter in 1941) and Queen Wilhelmina herself against the London Cabinet. He worked with the few Indonesians he managed to rescue from Java and West Papua, and even delimited the future borders of the Indonesian Commonwealth. After the war and the Proclamation, he dismissed the Djakarta government as a bunch of desperate gangster, but initially got some difficulties getting to Java as Douglas MacArthur went north to the Philippines handed over the responsibility to liberate Indonesia to the British-India-ANZAC forces a few months ago. This give Soekarno-Hatta time to consolidate their movement against both the impending Allied arrival and also taming down the Japanese-trained militias who participated in Bersiap. When Van Mook finally get the picture of the situation, he decided to negotiate with Soekarno in October 1945, despite protests from the Dutch conservatives in the Schermerhorn Cabinet (while the Prime Minister personally approved Van Mook's decision).

Several thousand Indonesians (both the Bumiputeras and other Indies people) killed later, and most of the Indonesian exiles got recaptured by the Dutch because of their refusal to 'stepping down from independence into a mere commonwealth', the ceasefire came in late 1946 in the form of Linggardjati Agreement, signed by Van Mook, Schermerhorn, Soetan Sjahrir (the first prime minister of Indonesia and an anti-Bersiap politician), and Soekarno. In the agreement, the United States came into fruition comprised by the Republic, a general Borneo state, and the State of East Indonesia. But the angry populace in Borneo ended up dividing Borneo into several entities, while State of East Indonesia emerged unscathed, with them compiled into the Federal Assembly (BFO). Beel's conservative cabinet pressured Van Mook to recapture the resource-rich areas of the Republic since the agreement, and he capitulated in July 1947, declaring a Police Action in the 21st. It resulted in further territorial loss for the Republic, which turned into autonomous entities much weaker compared to East Indonesia because lack of political support, popular support, and territorial integrity. BFO was also drifted further towards the Dutch as its additional members needed their protection.

By late October 1948, Van Mook refused to enact another Police Action to snuff out the Republic and resigned (with Beel personally oversaw the Second Police Action in December 18th), leaving the United State almost stillborn until finally declared in December 1949.