A Blunted Sickle - Thread II

[pdf27]

Question about this TL: Once WWII is over, would Stalin be interested in going to war against Turkey in order to conquer Kars and Ardahan regions? The USSR did have a claim on these territories after WWII in real life but never actually went to war over them, perhaps in part because it knew that the US would likely defend Turkey:

But would the exhausted Anglo-French actually be willing to militarily commit to defend Turkey's territorial integrity from the USSR in this TL? The US obviously won't.

It isn't something I've previously thought about, but my instinct is that nothing is going to happen.

1. Khrushchev said "Beria was pushing Stalin to do something". Quite apart from the fact that he would inherently be an unreliable witness (so many axes to grind!), even if accurate it would appear probable that Beria was doing it for internal (to the Politburo) political reasons, rather than geo-strategic ones.
2. The USSR was never exactly keen on non-Russian ethnicities, and that's all they would get by conquering the area. The areas of Poland they took, for instance, had a significant Ukrainian population.
3. Britain and France aren't nearly as exhausted as in OTL, and have just crushed a military force/economy that the Soviets knew well and respected in short order. That suggests caution is probably in order. This is going to be exacerbated by the situation in Poland where the French and British are the best hope of preventing a future Polish-Soviet war that the USSR would win but doesn't want to have to fight.

Seconded!

Thanks everyone.

 

[Gillan1220]

Question about this TL: Once WWII is over, would Stalin be interested in going to war against Turkey in order to conquer Kars and Ardahan regions? The USSR did have a claim on these territories after WWII in real life but never actually went to war over them, perhaps in part because it knew that the US would likely defend Turkey:

Soviet territorial claims against Turkey - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But would the exhausted Anglo-French actually be willing to militarily commit to defend Turkey's territorial integrity from the USSR in this TL? The US obviously won't.

It's unlikely that the USSR would go to war with Turkey right away, considering it was still recovering from its agricultural, economic, and manpower losses from WWII.

 

[Julius Vogel]

I didn't realise the USSR had lost much at all here

 

[diestormlie]

If I recall my geography correctly, the only overland invasion route available to the USSR is heavily mountainous; ill-suited to the mechanised way of war the USSR nominally wages. We do also have to remember that this is Turkey that we're talking about. The country and people that, but two decades earlier, fought the combined victors of WWI, after four years of losing WW1, and won. Whether or not Turkey was capable of willing of repeating that feat is, in some ways, immaterial. Capable of not, the USSR would have assume that Turkey was, in fact, capable.

I can only imagine that, if the USSR did invade, the Entente would be more than happy to offer and arrange credit, sell Turkey a variety of war booty and scrap metal prices. More than happy to, I imagine, additionally facilitate the sale or transfer of Italian Military Production to Ankara.* (Perhaps in fits of pique and irony, the Entente might even arrange the transfer of Greek arms to Turkey.)

*(I'm fairly sure this is the TL where France has bought a bunch of SM.79 for Indochina. A juicy 'carrot' for Italy that serves to divert Italian War Production away from the Italian Armed Forces.)

Even if the USSR were able to militarily defeat the Turkish Government, it had to be assumed that this would be insufficient to defeat the Turkish people. And, of course, the spectre of the Winter War still hangs over the Kremlin. Military power is a major source of prestige for the Soviet Government, and a vital pillar of its geopolitical legitimacy. A second potential military embarrassment would not, I imagine, be looked upon fondly; not least by the current military establishment, keenly aware of their predecessors' fates as they are.

At best, I think, the USSR would be contemplating the seizure of a slippery and poisoned chalice. At worst, it would end up suffering military defeat, the attendant embarrassing loss of prestige (both domestically and internationally,) whilst having brought about a geopolitically disastrous rapprochement between Turkey and The Entente/'The West' more generally.

I decline to draw any further parallels to current events, and only say that I can't see how the Kremlin ends up thinking it'd be a good idea.

 

[Ramontxo]

It isn't something I've previously thought about, but my instinct is that nothing is going to happen.

1. Khrushchev said "Beria was pushing Stalin to do something". Quite apart from the fact that he would inherently be an unreliable witness (so many axes to grind!), even if accurate it would appear probable that Beria was doing it for internal (to the Politburo) political reasons, rather than geo-strategic ones.
2. The USSR was never exactly keen on non-Russian ethnicities, and that's all they would get by conquering the area. The areas of Poland they took, for instance, had a significant Ukrainian population.
3. Britain and France aren't nearly as exhausted as in OTL, and have just crushed a military force/economy that the Soviets knew well and respected in short order. That suggests caution is probably in order. This is going to be exacerbated by the situation in Poland where the French and British are the best hope of preventing a future Polish-Soviet war that the USSR would win but doesn't want to have to fight.

Thanks everyone.

I forgive you the heart attack. More seriously take your time and when, in good time, you shall be able to return you will find us here waiting happily.

 

[What if]

If I may take this opportunity to mention something I had recently only stumbled upon.

Fiji's two largest ethnic groups are the Indigious Fijians and the Indo Fijians (descendant from people of the Indian subcontinent). Currently the Indigenous Fijians are 53% of the population.

Back in 1987 the Indo Fijians actually outnumbered the Indigenous (48% to 46% respectively) and the coup's of that year were motivated by a desire of to reserve a majority of seats in the Houses of Parliament, the officer of Prime Minister etc for Indigenous Natives as a backlash to a multi ethnic coalition winning the previous election. Edit Just to note the government was a Labour - National Federation Party alliance. end edit.

While this occurred and was eventually reversed with little protest from the International Community OTL (during the interim immigration saw the Indo Fijian community shrink and severely impacting the Fiji's economy) I would imagine India ITTL with its greater role in Decolonisation etc would be more protective of it diaspora and could possible move the Commonwealth towards far greater actions if something like the 1987 coups take place TTL. I unfortunately think something like those coups will happen since the motivation behind it will remain but again I think things would play out differently with a more assertive India.

 

[Julius Vogel]

Problem is that it would need military intervention.
The indigenous Fijian population have dominated the military branches for a long time although I do not know percentages.

So who does it? Ideally you would have Australia and NZ with the kind of military deployment capability to do that and the will. Neither seemed to at the time, will anyway.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Problem is that it would need military intervention.
The indigenous Fijian population have dominated the military branches for a long time although I do not know percentages.

So who does it? Ideally you would have Australia and NZ with the kind of military deployment capability to do that and the will. Neither seemed to at the time, will anyway.

India has the advantage of being able to exert pressure without facing accusations of reimposing colonial rule (which Australia and New Zealand would have to face). Direct intervention, however, will still have the look of colonial-style intervention by a major power, and is not going to improve India's reputation as an honest broker free of western and communist idealogy - especially in Fiji.

 

[Ukrainian Victory]

It isn't something I've previously thought about, but my instinct is that nothing is going to happen.

1. Khrushchev said "Beria was pushing Stalin to do something". Quite apart from the fact that he would inherently be an unreliable witness (so many axes to grind!), even if accurate it would appear probable that Beria was doing it for internal (to the Politburo) political reasons, rather than geo-strategic ones.
2. The USSR was never exactly keen on non-Russian ethnicities, and that's all they would get by conquering the area. The areas of Poland they took, for instance, had a significant Ukrainian population.
3. Britain and France aren't nearly as exhausted as in OTL, and have just crushed a military force/economy that the Soviets knew well and respected in short order. That suggests caution is probably in order. This is going to be exacerbated by the situation in Poland where the French and British are the best hope of preventing a future Polish-Soviet war that the USSR would win but doesn't want to have to fight.

Thanks everyone.

In regards to point #3, it's not quite as clear-cut. They might have been more financially exhausted in real life, but in this TL, they would have been bled dry much more in terms of their casualties. Please correct me, but don't the Anglo-French experience WWI-like casualties in WWII in this TL, which they did not endure in real life? (This was an unintentional benefit of France falling in 1940 for everyone other than specific groups such as French Jews: Specifically, it ensured that young French men of military age were not going to be bled dry on the Western Front in WWII like they previously were in WWI.)

Re: Point #2: Ukrainians are not Russians, though they and Belarusians are sufficiently close to Russians, which Caucasians are not.

Re: Point #1: The tensions appear to have been real enough since Turkey subsequently joined NATO in 1952, a year before Stalin's death. Seems kind of stupid to piss off the Turks over a small amount of territory like that.

 

[What if]

Problem is that it would need military intervention.
The indigenous Fijian population have dominated the military branches for a long time although I do not know percentages.

So who does it? Ideally you would have Australia and NZ with the kind of military deployment capability to do that and the will. Neither seemed to at the time, will anyway.

I think in 2005 it was 1% but this was after the mass migration away so I don't know if this was true in 1987.

I will say it wasn't a clear cut Indigenous vs Indian conflict. As the second coup in 1987 was in response to the Supreme Court ruling the coup illegal and the Governor General attempting to form a national unity government with the main Indigenous Fiji Party, Alliance, and the ousted Labour and National Federation Party Government so the main plotter 'fearing' a multi ethnic government taking power again conducted a second coup that made Fiji a Republic.

The second coup actually resulted in the dissolution of the Alliance party which I can't imagine was perceived well by most Indigenous Fijians. Plus the culprit, Rabuka, was only a LT Colonel (not the highest rank) so I do wonder if a split in the army could happen if the Commonwealth initiates mass sanctions etc. As during the 2000 coup the army split between the main group which remained loyal to the civilians government and determined to arrest the coupists and a rebellion that broke out in support of the coup attempt that was put down.

For added clarification the 2000 coup was armed civilians wanting to despose another multi ethnic government. As in 1997 the rules limiting 2/3 of all seats for Indigenous Fijians etc was struck down by the High Court and a multi ethnic government got elected which these armed civilians didn't like.

Side note, ironically it was the civilian government moving towards pardoning those responsible for the 2000 coup that resulted in the 2006 coup.

India has the advantage of being able to exert pressure without facing accusations of reimposing colonial rule (which Australia and New Zealand would have to face). Direct intervention, however, will still have the look of colonial-style intervention by a major power, and is not going to improve India's reputation as an honest broker free of western and communist idealogy - especially in Fiji.

Indeed it is a conundrum. Though as I said above I do wonder if direct action is necessary or if faced with actual far reaching sanctions the Fijian army might split.

 

[Ukrainian Victory]

Question: Are the Jews whom the Soviet Union inherited in 1939-1940 through its territorial annexations going to be allowed to leave the Soviet Union much earlier than the remaining (pre-1939) Soviet Jewish population would? Because I know that in real life, Soviet Jews from the annexed territories were often able to leave the Soviet Union as early as the mid- or late 1950s, unlike the remaining Soviet Jews, who often had to wait for the 1970s or even the late 1980s or 1990s in order for them to be allowed to leave. And here since there's no Holocaust at all in the Soviet Union, there are going to be many more Jews who are going to want to leave the Soviet Union, especially once they'll see just how much better life in the West and/or Israel is going to be relative to life in the Soviet Union. Even more so if Jewish quotas, et cetera are introduced in the Soviet Union like they were in real life.

I also wonder if some of eastern Poland's Jewish population (now within the Soviet Union) might move to Poland instead of moving to either Israel or to the West. At least a couple hundred thousand of them, I mean. The most assimilated ones.

 

[pdf27]

It's unlikely that the USSR would go to war with Turkey right away, considering it was still recovering from its agricultural, economic, and manpower losses from WWII.

I didn't realise the USSR had lost much at all here

It hasn't - the USSR has been at peace since the Winter War. They've sold a bunch of older kit (trucks, etc.) to the Germans, but will replace that in a year or so and be back to full strength.

I would imagine India ITTL with its greater role in Decolonisation etc would be more protective of it diaspora and could possible move the Commonwealth towards far greater actions if something like the 1987 coups take place TTL. I unfortunately think something like those coups will happen since the motivation behind it will remain but again I think things would play out differently with a more assertive India.

That's one of the things I'm musing about in the background. I think we're going to see a much more assertive and (dare I say it?) imperialistic India ITTL. In OTL independence came as an offer from Cripps which was seen as "A post-dated cheque on a crashing bank" and certainly the UK of 1948 wasn't a very impressive power. ITTL the bank is still very much solvent, and Indian troops are among those fighting their way into the belly of the beast in Berlin. Add in the fact that we seem to be moving towards a single federal state rather than the OTL India-Pakistan confrontation and I think at the very least India will be much more self-confident and outward looking.

India has the advantage of being able to exert pressure without facing accusations of reimposing colonial rule (which Australia and New Zealand would have to face). Direct intervention, however, will still have the look of colonial-style intervention by a major power, and is not going to improve India's reputation as an honest broker free of western and communist idealogy - especially in Fiji.

Are they really going to care all that much about their reputation?

In regards to point #3, it's not quite as clear-cut. They might have been more financially exhausted in real life, but in this TL, they would have been bled dry much more in terms of their casualties. Please correct me, but don't the Anglo-French experience WWI-like casualties in WWII in this TL, which they did not endure in real life? (This was an unintentional benefit of France falling in 1940 for everyone other than specific groups such as French Jews: Specifically, it ensured that young French men of military age were not going to be bled dry on the Western Front in WWII like they previously were in WWI.)

Less than you'd think. The French suffered very badly indeed in OTL 1940, largely because a military collapse is one of the few times that a unit suffers really severe casualties.

In OTL the French lost 210,000 direct military casualties and the UK 383,000 - despite the UK actively fighting for much longer over all theatres of war. Of these roughly half seem to have been in the Army - with no Bomber Command, far smaller Battle of the Atlantic and no Far Eastern war the other casualties will be vastly lower. All in all I think you're looking at similar or slightly lower total casualties than in OTL WW2 - the fighting in France and Belgium is much fiercer, but it's a very small theatre and you save vast amounts of effort elsewhere. The much shorter war also helps a lot with civilian/non-battle casualties.

Re: Point #2: Ukrainians are not Russians, though they and Belarusians are sufficiently close to Russians, which Caucasians are not.

That was rather my point - I'm by no means an expert on Soviet racism, but my understanding is that the attitude towards those from the southern "republics" was very different than that towards Slavs.

Question: Are the Jews whom the Soviet Union inherited in 1939-1940 through its territorial annexations going to be allowed to leave the Soviet Union much earlier than the remaining (pre-1939) Soviet Jewish population would? Because I know that in real life, Soviet Jews from the annexed territories were often able to leave the Soviet Union as early as the mid- or late 1950s, unlike the remaining Soviet Jews, who often had to wait for the 1970s or even the late 1980s or 1990s in order for them to be allowed to leave. And here since there's no Holocaust at all in the Soviet Union, there are going to be many more Jews who are going to want to leave the Soviet Union, especially once they'll see just how much better life in the West and/or Israel is going to be relative to life in the Soviet Union.

That comes down to the very thorny question of whether the State of Israel will exist as we know it in OTL. I'm leaning towards the view that it will not - many of the circumstances of it's creation are so deeply changed that whatever happens in the region (and the pre-war equilibrium is NOT stable) will not look like OTL.

 

[naraht]

In regards to the State of Israel, it more or less boils down to "What does Stalin do with the Jews of the Soviet Union, specifically those that he got in the area of Poland that the Soviet Union grabbed in the split of Poland". We've estimated that there will be at *least* 3 Million Jews alive in 1945 iTTL that weren't alive in OTL and close to half of those are Polish Jews. (and almost that many more Poles).

*If* Stalin is willing to let anyone go, the Catholic Poles will go to remaining Poland, but a *large* number of the Jews will *try* to go to Palestine. But the British are in a *far* better shape to control immigration to Palestine. The question is where would those Jews go? If they just end up at more camps in Cyprus, you could end up with Cyprus having more Jews than Turks!

This also leads to the question as to whether it makes sense to have a Polish SSR or to do as iOTL and simply assign the land to either the BeSSR or UkSSR.

(And how large it is physically possible to make the Jewish Autonomous Oblast!)

 

[diestormlie]

you could end up with Cyprus having more Jews than Turks!

Cursed Cyprus split between (Greek) Cypriot Republic, (Turkish) Republic of Cyprus, (Jewish) Republic of North-West Israel. And of course, the British still have their Soverign Base Areas.

Truly, the Darkest Timeline.

 

[Julius Vogel]

I think in 2005 it was 1% but this was after the mass migration away so I don't know if this was true in 1987.

I will say it wasn't a clear cut Indigenous vs Indian conflict. As the second coup in 1987 was in response to the Supreme Court ruling the coup illegal and the Governor General attempting to form a national unity government with the main Indigenous Fiji Party, Alliance, and the ousted Labour and National Federation Party Government so the main plotter 'fearing' a multi ethnic government taking power again conducted a second coup that made Fiji a Republic.

The second coup actually resulted in the dissolution of the Alliance party which I can't imagine was perceived well by most Indigenous Fijians. Plus the culprit, Rabuka, was only a LT Colonel (not the highest rank) so I do wonder if a split in the army could happen if the Commonwealth initiates mass sanctions etc. As during the 2000 coup the army split between the main group which remained loyal to the civilians government and determined to arrest the coupists and a rebellion that broke out in support of the coup attempt that was put down.

For added clarification the 2000 coup was armed civilians wanting to despose another multi ethnic government. As in 1997 the rules limiting 2/3 of all seats for Indigenous Fijians etc was struck down by the High Court and a multi ethnic government got elected which these armed civilians didn't like.

Side note, ironically it was the civilian government moving towards pardoning those responsible for the 2000 coup that resulted in the 2006 coup.



Indeed it is a conundrum. Though as I said above I do wonder if direct action is necessary or if faced with actual far reaching sanctions the Fijian army might split.

All interesting stuff, thank you.

I was more interested in the reasons why NZ and Aus governments didn't intervene though. I really need to do some reading on the topic it seems! As an example I just found this article on a 1987 hi-jacking of an Air NZ plane by an Indo-Fijian angry at the coup. I had totally forgotten about the hijacking (maybe because I was a child when it happened?) but the article itself has a good survey of the wider situation, which I am reading right now. Chapter 4 for example deals with NZ govt contemplation of an operational military deployment.

New Zealand's Response to the Aircraft Hijack Incident, During the 1987 Coup d'Etat in Fiji: A Study of Civil-Military Relations in Crisis

https://mro.massey.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10179/7154/02_whole.pdf

 

[Julius Vogel]

Reading that article at present and it is interesting to see just how close the Fijian Armywas with the NZ Army at the time. By this I mean training - as NZ provided training for the Fijians and lots of the later coup officers had trained in NZ so had deep connections/relationships with NZ Army personnel. 47 Fijian servicemen were in NZ at the time of the coup as an example. Despite that, it was still a surprise to NZ.

 

[Salamander]

Reading that article at present and it is interesting to see just how close the Fijian Armywas with the NZ Army at the time. By this I mean training - as NZ provided training for the Fijians and lots of the later coup officers had trained in NZ so had deep connections/relationships with NZ Army personnel. 47 Fijian servicemen were in NZ at the time of the coup as an example. Despite that, it was still a surprise to NZ.

The first coup happened during NZ school holidays. A classmate's family had been on holiday in Fiji during the coup, so we asked him if it had been scary. He told us that it wasn't that scary and that the day after the coup itself, they even went and had lunch with his 'Uncle' Steve, who was an old friend of his father's (an officer in the NZ Army). 'Uncle' Steve turned out to be one Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka, the coup leader. Cue shocked & stunned expressions.

 

[Ukrainian Victory]

Less than you'd think. The French suffered very badly indeed in OTL 1940, largely because a military collapse is one of the few times that a unit suffers really severe casualties.

In OTL the French lost 210,000 direct military casualties and the UK 383,000 - despite the UK actively fighting for much longer over all theatres of war. Of these roughly half seem to have been in the Army - with no Bomber Command, far smaller Battle of the Atlantic and no Far Eastern war the other casualties will be vastly lower. All in all I think you're looking at similar or slightly lower total casualties than in OTL WW2 - the fighting in France and Belgium is much fiercer, but it's a very small theatre and you save vast amounts of effort elsewhere. The much shorter war also helps a lot with civilian/non-battle casualties.

Those casualties, while huge in an overall sense, aren't that much when they're compared to the Anglo-French World War I casualties. And the Anglo-French had to continue the fight until the end of 1941 in this TL, with them facing the brunt of the German military since there was no Eastern Front in this TL.

 

[Julius Vogel]

The first coup happened during NZ school holidays. A classmate's family had been on holiday in Fiji during the coup, so we asked him if it had been scary. He told us that it wasn't that scary and that the day after the coup itself, they even went and had lunch with his 'Uncle' Steve, who was an old friend of his father's (an officer in the NZ Army). 'Uncle' Steve turned out to be one Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka, the coup leader. Cue shocked & stunned expressions.

That is amazing, thanks for sharing

 

[Ukrainian Victory]

Does the Italian monarchy survive up to the present-day in this TL? Is it going to lead a return to democracy in Italy after Mussolini's eventual death similar to what Juan Carlos did after Franco's death in Spain in real life?