A Blunted Sickle - Thread II

[What if]

On the topic of European nations I have been wondering how long many of the 'royal' dictatorships will survive . To clarify when I say royal dictatorship I mean dictatorship where the King is the dictator so Fascist Italy doesn't apply.

1. I have mentioned thread numerous times the fact the King of Romania, Carol II, is not exactly the brightest yet performed a self coup to destroy what democracy Romania had. I do expect him to make a mistake that results in him being replaced with his son again and democracy returning.

2. While granted Horthy was not recognised as a king Hungary was calling itself the Kingdom of Hungary at this point. I don't think I need to go into why Hungary was a dictatorship at this point (most noticeable was only one party ruling from 1922 - 1944). I think what happens here is largely dependant who replaces Horthy when he dies and if they will be inclined towards democracy. There has been speculation over if a Hapsburg will be granted the Hungary throne (though Austria-Hungary not coming back) and if that is the case I would think Hungary might actually transition to democracy.

3. Bulgaria at this point has been going through a cycle of; the peasants party gets elected, the king performant a coup then brings back democracy and I think the cycle will have to break at some point. Though how remains to be seen.

4. Greece. I classy this as a royal dictatorship namely because Metaxas did have to rely on the King to get power and ITTL George 2 is reeling with the system Metaxas set up. Though I do wonder how sustainable this system is in the long term.

5. Yugoslavia seems to be stuck between rock and a hard place on questions relating to how to balance out the different ethnicities. I don't think this was helped by Alexander 1 centralising everything under the monarchy. Now while it is still in regency, considering how Peter 2 was as a war time King I'm not sure how effective he is going to be in trying to keep Yugoslavia together.

 

[diestormlie]

On the topic of European nations I have been wondering how long many of the 'royal' dictatorships will survive . To clarify when I say royal dictatorship I mean dictatorship where the King is the dictator so Fascist Italy doesn't apply.

[Snip]

Something to consider is that Germany (seemed to) roll over Poland (practically speaking, a dictatorship) fairly quickly, and then got kicked seven ways to Sunday by the UK and France, democracies both. I expect the cultural cachet of Liberal Democracy would be elevated (and the cachet of dictatorship reduced.)

Yes, both the UK and France are pre-eminent Great Powers, but we're talking about how things are perceived. Especially as Post-War Entente would presumably be pro-Liberal-Democracy in terms of its allies and partners.

 

[torten]

Norway and Denmark won't be faced with a polar choice between the Swedish-Finno Union and the Entente - both will have largely shared aims in regards to keeping the Soviets where they are, and keeping a foot in both camps will be a very viable option. The Swedish-Finno Union might even be involved in a NATO equivalent in some manner if one forms.

 

[naraht]

Norway and Denmark won't be faced with a polar choice between the Swedish-Finno Union and the Entente - both will have largely shared aims in regards to keeping the Soviets where they are, and keeping a foot in both camps will be a very viable option. The Swedish-Finno Union might even be involved in a NATO equivalent in some manner if one forms.

Agreed. And in fact London and Paris probably would welcome stronger ties between Oslo/Copenhagen and the Union.

 

[naraht]

After looking at the comments on the relations, it feels like the following.

Everyone (north of/including) Czechoslovakia (other than the USSR of course) will rank Entente over Italy over the USSR, with the F/S Union *perhaps* having a different policies toward Italy than the Entente, but being almost certainly being on the same page toward the USSR. This *might* include joint Naval Exercises in the Baltic between the Union and the Entente.

In southwestern Europe, Portugal under Salazar is likely to stay with the Entente, but Franco I think try to Balance the Entente with Italy (Franco would be no more willing to have relations with the USSR iTTL than iOTL)

In southeastern Europe, it feels like if Hungary and Bulgaria align with Italy (note, neither shares a border with Italy) and everyone else aligns with the Entente that that would more or less keep existing relationships intact. This would of course require Romania to replace Italian Troops with Entente, which will be interesting. If Romania stays with the Italy, OTOH, that affects both Hungary and Bulgaria's willingness to do.

 

[Icedaemon]

Might Romania not end up in a situation wherein they can to a degree at least court both the Italians and the Entente in terms of gaining support against the soviets? The Italians will not want to give up their current presence there, but might be willing to make numerous concessions rather than try something ham-fisted and simplistic with the Entente breathing down their necks.

 

[thunderplunk]

Well, I've just finished my... fourth? fifth? re-read of the whole timeline. I'm pleased to report it's still one hell of a story – I doubt I'll ever cease to be amazed at how poetic Hitler's fate was, and it makes sense that it was a plot point you'd been driving towards the whole time.

I won't badger you for more – I'm well aware of both how difficult it can be to get back to a project and how miserable the last few years have been, so instead I'll just say that I hope that you and yours are doing alright, and that I'll be thrilled to get any updates that come along in your own time.

 

[Marco Rivignani]

Might Romania not end up in a situation wherein they can to a degree at least court both the Italians and the Entente in terms of gaining support against the soviets? The Italians will not want to give up their current presence there, but might be willing to make numerous concessions rather than try something ham-fisted and simplistic with the Entente breathing down their necks.

Well, this also depends on Turkey not closing the strait to the Italian warships. While I have always envisioned Italy sending only some destroyers and the occasional cruiser I don't think that the Turks would have scrapped the Montreaux convention and allowed Italian battleships in the black sea in the first place. (In my head I always envisioned something like the heavy cruiser Bolzano and two Soldati-class destroyers (14.760 tons) being sent to Constanta as a show of force during the Bessarabia Crisis and later some Capitani Romani class cruisers or several pairs of destroyers periodically being assigned to Romania but nothing permanent).

Also, I don't personally remember it, has Bulgaria been given southern Dobruja or not?

 

[Deleted member 170721]

Well, this also depends on Turkey not closing the strait to the Italian warships. While I have always envisioned Italy sending only some destroyers and the occasional cruiser I don't think that the Turks would have scrapped the Montreaux convention and allowed Italian battleships in the black sea in the first place. (In my head I always envisioned something like the heavy cruiser Bolzano and two Soldati-class destroyers (14.760 tons) being sent to Constanta as a show of force during the Bessarabia Crisis and later some Capitani Romani class cruisers or several pairs of destroyers periodically being assigned to Romania but nothing permanent).

While I agree that Italy will not be allowed to send battleships to the Black Sea I don't see the Italians sending the Bolzano; instead, a light cruiser and several torpedo boats and several MAS boats are more plausible. I also see it as likely that Italy will either donate or built several ships for the Romanians (maybe even a Capitani Romani-class cruiser?)

 

[naraht]

Might Romania not end up in a situation wherein they can to a degree at least court both the Italians and the Entente in terms of gaining support against the soviets? The Italians will not want to give up their current presence there, but might be willing to make numerous concessions rather than try something ham-fisted and simplistic with the Entente breathing down their necks.

In terms of the Romanians and military "courting". The Romanians could definitely use a naval upgrade and that there will be lots of room for gifts. The most significant naval forces that they had at the time of the POD were destroyers built by the Italians, but they also had boats built by themselves, the British, the French, the Austro-Hungarians (mostly gotten as the AH navy was broken up at the end of WWI) and even Czarist Russia! As a note, the Romanian Navy doesn't need "legs", the Black Sea is a bathtub compared to where the Brits and French expect to send their ships. In that regards, (other than insulation!) their needs are closer to that of Poland and the F/S Union. (If you told the Romanians that a ship given to them would automatically blow up if taken outside the Black Sea, they'd probably take that as a feature rather than a bug)

 

[naraht]

While I agree that Italy will not be allowed to send battleships to the Black Sea I don't see the Italians sending the Bolzano; instead, a light cruiser and several torpedo boats and several MAS boats are more plausible. I also see it as likely that Italy will either donate or built several ships for the Romanians (maybe even a Capitani Romani-class cruiser?)

Depends on how high the bidding goes. The Capitani Romani-class cruisers were among the newest ships in the Italian navy (they didn't even start laying them down until 1939). And honestly, I'm not sure the Romanians want brand new. OTOH, the Italians offering them something like the entire class of renovated Navigatori destroyers (built in the late 1920s and renovated with Clipper bows in the late 1930s...)

The honest question is whether the Romanians can afford/operate a large enough navy to single handedly fight off the Soviets.

 

[Lascaris]

Depends on how high the bidding goes. The Capitani Romani-class cruisers were among the newest ships in the Italian navy (they didn't even start laying them down until 1939). And honestly, I'm not sure the Romanians want brand new. OTOH, the Italians offering them something like the entire class of renovated Navigatori destroyers (built in the late 1920s and renovated with Clipper bows in the late 1930s...)

The honest question is whether the Romanians can afford/operate a large enough navy to single handedly fight off the Soviets.

They had been offered a 4,500t light cruiser and a 11,500t pocket battleship design. As for money at this point Romania should be relatively awash in it, at the time she is one of the world's largest oil producing nations, aside from large agriculture exports.

 

[Chris S]

After looking at the comments on the relations, it feels like the following.

Everyone (north of/including) Czechoslovakia (other than the USSR of course) will rank Entente over Italy over the USSR, with the F/S Union *perhaps* having a different policies toward Italy than the Entente, but being almost certainly being on the same page toward the USSR. This *might* include joint Naval Exercises in the Baltic between the Union and the Entente.

In southwestern Europe, Portugal under Salazar is likely to stay with the Entente, but Franco I think try to Balance the Entente with Italy (Franco would be no more willing to have relations with the USSR iTTL than iOTL)

In southeastern Europe, it feels like if Hungary and Bulgaria align with Italy (note, neither shares a border with Italy) and everyone else aligns with the Entente that that would more or less keep existing relationships intact. This would of course require Romania to replace Italian Troops with Entente, which will be interesting. If Romania stays with the Italy, OTOH, that affects both Hungary and Bulgaria's willingness to do.

I'm not sure multilateral naval exercises will even be a thing in this world. I don't think the first NATO multilateral military exercises were held until 1951 in OTL and the Entente of this world are not NATO as much as we will have a tendency to try to map the familiar from our world onto things. Certainly there would be a lot of coordinated planning, but in this world:

1. There is no NATO replicating the unified command of Western Allied forces under essentially American command.

2. The Entente won the Battle of France. So by this point the relevant British and French history of military cooperation is one where they cooperated and coordinated in planning before World War I and in execution of operations during in World War I (before appointing Foch as Supreme Allied Commander only in 1918), followed more continued cooperation and coordination in planning and then World War II where they don't appoint a Supreme Allied Commander like Foch again and actually beat the Germans:

One question I should have asked already, why do the British and the French not have one Supreme Commander à la Foch in 1918? The situation as Paris was taken is at least if not more serious than the Allies faced in 1918 as the Kaiserschlacht hammered the Allied lines, so was it never considered optimal to have one man in charge, regardless of how well GQG and IGS actually liaise? OTL they never had the time, but here they did. Not saying it would work more efficiently, just odd that they didn't consider it

Good question which doesn't have a very good answer. It's a mixture of the WW1 model (where they eventually appointed a Generalissimo in 1918 - but not during the battles of the Marne in 1914: an awful lot of fighting plus a desperate situation was needed before they did so), the fact that despite the WW1 experience they didn't feel the need to in OTL WW2, and the fact that during the critical days around Paris events really weren't under the control of anybody - Brooke and Prioux accidentally found themselves in the right place at the right time, talked to each other and did the right thing without orders from their higher command: the communications situation was so bad in fact that Prioux told Reynaud via London what was going on. In the circumstances attempts to impose some sort of Generalissimo aren't just implausible but absurd - any such commander could only be French, and GQG couldn't talk to their own armies reliably at the time let alone the British. After the kerfuffle dies down, you're back to a 1915 situation where informal cooperation seems good enough and avoids bruising a lot of egos, and we've yet to have 1918 levels of desperation again.

The takeaway from this for the British and the French (who are the very core of the Entente after the war) is that what they did worked. Hence there isn't any logical reason for them to mess around with what worked for them in 1940-1942 (except that one lesson learned is for there to be a much better communications situation with their own forces). In this world European countries are likely to continue to be more independent of each other than in OTL and this seems likely to be reflected in how they carry out military cooperation and coordination. In OTL the heavy toll of the war meant America was undisputed master/leader of the military forces of the western countries by 1944/1945. Also as an outsider to the European continent it likely ruffled feathers less (or rather in a different sort of way) to have an American Supreme Allied Commander than to have one who was British/French/Dutch/Belgian etc.

 

[naraht]

I'm not sure multilateral naval exercises will even be a thing in this world. I don't think the first NATO multilateral military exercises were held until 1951 in OTL and the Entente of this world are not NATO as much as we will have a tendency to try to map the familiar from our world onto things. Certainly there would be a lot of coordinated planning, but in this world:

A smaller step might be to allow F/S Union representatives on the Entente ships doing exercises in the Baltic. (and vice versa). Part of the issue is that while doing exercises in the Baltic is like working in a Bathtub, restricting to only Entente/international waters is like doing exercises in the Kitchen Sink. Perhaps a few years of *that* would bump things along.

The even bigger question on Multilateral Naval exercises.... the South China Sea.

 

[Driftless]

(snip)
The even bigger question on Multilateral Naval exercises.... the South China Sea.

Who are the sides there? France and the UK. Probably Australia? New Zealand (or no?) A proto-Indonesia/different DEI?, a different independent Philippine Republic, which version of China(s), British Malaya/de-colonizing Malaya, Thailand, French Indochina/some decolonizing entities similar to to OTL? Where do Singapore, Hong Kong, and Macau fit in too?

 

[Chris S]

A smaller step might be to allow F/S Union representatives on the Entente ships doing exercises in the Baltic. (and vice versa). Part of the issue is that while doing exercises in the Baltic is like working in a Bathtub, restricting to only Entente/international waters is like doing exercises in the Kitchen Sink. Perhaps a few years of *that* would bump things along.

The even bigger question on Multilateral Naval exercises.... the South China Sea.

But again, you are referring to exercises by the group (the Entente). Which I question whether or not it would even happen. It's not even about exercises occurring between F/S Union and the Entente, but any military exercises occurring that involve more than one country (such as Britain and France).

Here, take a look at this and read Chapter 3 (specifically pages 86-96). The relevant quotes are:

National Military Exercises to Test Unit Proficiency and Doctrine

Military exercises were largely performed unilaterally throughout the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries as coalitions were created and disbanded temporarily to meet particular
crises. Even though the 1879 Austro-German alliance marked the beginning of peacetime
coalitions—bound by treaty to come to the aid of another under specific circumstances—military
exercises remained largely a national phenomenon.182

The Advent of Traditional Multinational Military Exercises During the Cold War

The establishment of permanent peacetime alliances after World War II marked a significant
transition in the evolution of military exercises. From this point on, exercises were conducted
not just nationally, but internationally as well. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
began conducting regular multinational exercises in the first few years of its existence.

So, it seems vanishingly unlikely that in a world where the Entente powers reverted to their 1914-1917 method of fighting together (without a Supreme Allied Commander in control of all Allied forces) that there would ever be the impetus to have their forces actually exercise together during peace time. At best I would expect that there would be headquarters/staff coordination so that the British and French staff planners would get together, exchange notes and come up with plans on how to fight future wars. Also the long tradition of military observers would likely continue and I would expect the French to send observers to some British exercises (to take notes) and vice versa. I don't expect that there would or even could be Entente exercises in the Baltic. There would be Polish exercises in the Baltic and British exercises in the North Sea and Atlantic and likely French exercises in the Mediterranean (since there was that informal agreement I believe for the French to concentrate their navy in the Med while the British concentrated their navy in the North Sea and the Channel).

Multinational military exercises are very much a product of OTL's World War II and its outcome which resulted in both the USA and USSR becoming the dominant powers in their respective spheres and establishing fairly tight alliance systems that were unlikely anything before. This TL's Entente cannot become like NATO since the trajectory of its formation is wholly different. For instance the supreme commander for NATO is SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander) and this individual heads SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe). Not only is SACEUR always an American officer but the very first SACEUR just also happened to be the (only) Supreme Allied Commander/Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force that used to head the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF); Dwight Eisenhower. SHAEF (and its commander's position) was formed in OTL in 1943 and SHAPE is descended from SHAEF. There was an intermediate organization (the Western Union or WU and its Western Union Defence Organization or WUDO), but this Western European affair was again descended from...SHAEF (the Chairman of the Commander-in-Chief Committee was Montgomery who also just happened to have been a ground forces commander in...SHAEF and in wartime it was expected that the CinC Committee would form the Combined Allied Command, though there was apparently much disagreement and ill-will between Montgomery as Chairman and Jean de Lattre de Tassigny as CinC Land Forces). Note that when NATO was formed from the ruins of WUDO (i.e. when the Americans became involved again) they did away with the nonsense of having a "Chairman" of a "CinC Committee" in what was quite clearly a looser organization that reflected the equality of status between Britain and France (and the rest nominally) and just outright reverted to the original SHAEF/Supreme Allied Commander model of 1943-1945 and had it be the American commander of the USA's European Command. No SHAEF = No WUDO = No SHAPE. No American entry on overwhelmingly dominant terms in relation to the British and French means no SHAEF.

 

[naraht]

Who are the sides there? France and the UK. Probably Australia? New Zealand (or no?) A proto-Indonesia/different DEI?, a different independent Philippine Republic, which version of China(s), British Malaya/de-colonizing Malaya, Thailand, French Indochina/some decolonizing entities similar to to OTL? Where do Singapore, Hong Kong, and Macau fit in too?

Well, for the next 3 years (at least, independence was supposed to be 1945 based on the law that was passed, but *everyone* wanted to wait), the US would be part of the question. and possibly beyond that, depending on how scared the RoP is of the Japanese. If the Japanese have a Civil War and the Army manages to get the jump on the Navy and eviscerates the Admirals, *maybe* the RoP doesn't keep the American Navy around. The good thing is that the US is still going to want a "July 4" birthday and I don't think the Japanese would want to start things off during July.

I'm not sure how much different the Philippine Republic could diverge, most of the structure of the Philippine government going forward was set up by the POD.

China *is* the 400 pound Canary. (The UK's navy in Singapore is the 500 pound Canary)

 

[Belschaft]

I don't think we should be so quick to rule out joint Entente wargames and exercises, simply because the lesson the French and British have taken from the war this time is that their problems in the 1930's and in 1940 all stemmed from a lack of early cooperation. As far as the politicians and generals are concerned once they got their act sorted and worked closely together they crushed Germany in short order, but because they didn't do that until the very last moment they nearly lost everything. If you add in the various forms of cooperation on military procurement and combined operations that they have developed during the fighting then there is a strong incentive to make sure that the core Entente forces maintain a high level of interoperability and coordination beyond the end of the war. You aren't going to see a permanent "Supreme Headquarters Entente Powers Europe" but you will have numerous joint Franco-British military committees and a joint administration of Germany.

 

[Chris S]

I don't think we should be so quick to rule out joint Entente wargames and exercises, simply because the lesson the French and British have taken from the war this time is that their problems in the 1930's and in 1940 all stemmed from a lack of early cooperation. As far as the politicians and generals are concerned once they got their act sorted and worked closely together they crushed Germany in short order, but because they didn't do that until the very last moment they nearly lost everything.

But they won. The inclination isn't to put national armies together under joint command, much less to go through various preparations for such armies on a multilateral basis. Note how despite Marshall Foch having been Supreme Allied Commander for nearly 6 months in 1918, the French and British pointedly did not appoint anyone to any remotely equivalent position in 1939, 1940, 1941 or 1942? Why not? Was the lesson not learned in 1918 that deeper cooperation was needed in order to prevail? Clearly that (the need to appoint a Supreme Allied Commander) was not the lesson they took home and the feat was only replicated when the Americans came into the picture and absolutely dominated it. As I said previously I would expect closer cooperation to be a lesson drawn, but such cooperation would most likely be more along the lines of what worked for them (which also just happens to neatly fit into their preference for keeping their militaries a purely national thing anyway). This would be things such as the British and French General Staffs regularly communicating and drafting plans.

If you add in the various forms of cooperation on military procurement and combined operations that they have developed during the fighting then there is a strong incentive to make sure that the core Entente forces maintain a high level of interoperability and coordination beyond the end of the war.

All of what you said here would have applied as equally in the aftermath of 1918 as it would in TTL's 1942. However in the 1914-1918 war it was almost exclusively a Franco-British affair in the West until the Americans came in during 1917 and this time around they didn't even have the Americans coming in at all (and won). In essence TTLs 1939-1942 will reinforce/vindicate the trends and mindsets of the pre-1939 thinking, which in particular was not that far removed from the pre-1914 thinking in terms of how the Western European empires viewed their place in the world (i.e. one of being superior and distinct nations, even if they are allies). pdf27 has already said a long time ago that a Franco-British Union (as was proposed in OTL) was not ever proposed (or implemented) in TTL (though he also said the beginnings of such a thing had occurred essentially I think as the Bank of England underwriting the French central bank/treasury), so it isn't as if even that plan (which did involve a joint military command) would have been around to form the basis of such thoughts and actions later for something as unusually centralized (historically speaking) as NATO, including joint command and multilateral exercises.

You aren't going to see a permanent "Supreme Headquarters Entente Powers Europe" but you will have numerous joint Franco-British military committees and a joint administration of Germany.

Agreed on the committees, but if I'm not mistaken there were such committees very early in the war anyway (so continuation of the same) and I think (though I may be wrong) from before the war and even during WWI.

Regarding the joint administration of Germany, even that might end up resembling the Rhineland occupation writ large (and OTL's occupation of Germany certainly drew a lot of inspiration from the Rhineland occupation). Again though, we had the joint administration of the Rhineland by the Allied powers from 1919 onwards (through the Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission) but no inclination for joint command or joint exercises of their forces.

In essence the cooperation that results seems far more likely to be of the administrative/planning variety than in doing joint physical activities such as exercises and without appointing Supreme Allied Commanders.

Until 1943, the appointment of Foch as a Supreme Allied Commander was an anomaly in how things were done, likely stretching back to the Napoleonic Wars (and even then it would more often be the case that the smaller powers in Germany, Iberia and the Low Countries (often states that were noticeably weaker; had been overrun by Napoleon already or were very desperate - thus mirroring the conditions of 1943-1945) might put their armies under the command of someone like Wellington) and TTL 1939-1942 hasn't been the seismic shift in power for the Western European countries that the Napoleonic Wars were or that OTL 1939-1945 was.

 

[Palantir]

But they won. The inclination isn't to put national armies together under joint command, much less to go through various preparations for such armies on a multilateral basis. Note how despite Marshall Foch having been Supreme Allied Commander for nearly 6 months in 1918, the French and British pointedly did not appoint anyone to any remotely equivalent position in 1939, 1940, 1941 or 1942? Why not? Was the lesson not learned in 1918 that deeper cooperation was needed in order to prevail? Clearly that (the need to appoint a Supreme Allied Commander) was not the lesson they took home and the feat was only replicated when the Americans came into the picture and absolutely dominated it. As I said previously I would expect closer cooperation to be a lesson drawn, but such cooperation would most likely be more along the lines of what worked for them (which also just happens to neatly fit into their preference for keeping their militaries a purely national thing anyway). This would be things such as the British and French General Staffs regularly communicating and drafting plans.

As I understand it, the French wanted to appoint a Supreme Allied Commander in 1939-1940, but the British weren't keen, for the simple reason that the "SAC" would have been French, as they had the biggest army in the field.
I find the lack of Supreme Allied Commander odd in this time line, specially as from mid-1940, you have four major armies fighting in Western Europe (France, the UK, Belgium and the Netherlands). And I don't count the "minor nations" (Commonwealth, Poland, ...) which have been fighting under the command of the British or the French command structure. The simple needs of coordination would have become enormous, and it would have become harder and harder as time goes by.

I also note that the appointement of Foch as Supreme Allied Commander in 1917 was also in reaction to the need to integrate the American forces in the command structure. ITTL, there is also the need to better organize themselves for the Allies. Sure, ITTL, the French Command structure is in limbo during the summer of 1940, but afterward, the needs will force the Allies to organize themselves politically and militarilly. The Allied military structure might not be as tight as in OTL WW2, but they will need to organize or face, like they nearly did ITTL in mi-1940, a defeat in detail.