A Blunted Sickle - Thread II

I could definitely see some of the smaller colonies hanging around and being profitable (Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.), but it's very clear that India is about 90% of the Empire by value.
If the claim had been India leaving makes the formal British Empire a great deal smaller, then sure that is obviously true. But it was "the economics of the British Empire mostly fall apart" which is a very different thing indeed.
Note also that a lot of non-Empire countries are essentially part of the Empire in trading terms - Argentina is the classical example.
This is indeed the point, India leaving does not change any of that. OTL post-war India stayed in the Sterling Area for a good few years after independence and it was US pressure/Bretton Woods/wartime debts that caused them to finally leave. Those thing don't apply here so I can see India staying in even longer, particularly if they leave on slightly better terms.

Informal Empire, Sterling Area, whatever you want to call it I think it is an much stronger position than OTL and remains un-fallen-apart.
It’s possibly more that without control of the Indian economy the whole infrastructure of British bases “East of Suez” was less necessary and an unnecessary burden.
I can't see it. British influence in the Middle East is going to be at least as much as OTL, probably more as the US is more inward focused, so the base around there remain valuable.

In the actual Far East Malaya/Singapore remain incredibly valuable and there is a big question on what happens to China. Prior to the war 40% of the Chinese shipping trade had been British, BAT were the biggest company in China, then add on all the investments around Shanghai/Yangtze River delta, etc. What happens to all that is going to be important to British plans for the region.
 
No lend-lease. There are significant loans in the US, but overall imports from the US are way down compared to OTL.
I gather that this sentence is primarily focused on British TTL history.

So in TTL, did France build the Savannah heavy-manufacturing complex, and build additional heavy industrial capacity in Quebec? (Intended in OTL, but events intervened.)

Did France still force the reorganization of the Metropolitan aircraft industry by geographical manufacturing location?

Did significant elements of the French industrial labor force remain influenced by COMINTERN direction, to the detriment of production rates?

No lend-lease. There are significant loans in the US, but overall imports from the US are way down compared to OTL.
The pre-May-1940 activities of the French side of the French British Purchasing Commission had established a pattern, involving French purchase of large quantities of aircraft and transport-vehicles. (That also involved negotiations for land around Savannah for the aforementioned industrial complex, and discussions with infrastructure suppliers and potential materials- and subcomponent-suppliers.) Does that pattern remain unchanged in TTL, or is it somehow radically reversed?
 
Did significant elements of the French industrial labor force remain influenced by COMINTERN direction, to the detriment of production rates?
The OTL French authorities found out that sabotage was nearly non-existent. Most of the workers who had communist sympathies completely ignored COMINTERN pamphlets after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The few suspected cases of sabotage were simply down to poor worksmanship caused by the fast increase in production rates much like in the 1941-42 UK and (pre-1939 labor reforms) a lack of motivation, both problems being solved by mid-1940.

Without talking for pdf27, the creation of production lines for French equipment in the US would probably have happened and acquisition of machine tooling would have continued, but orders of American equipment itself would probably have dried up in 1941 as the local industry or Franco-US lines ramped up, while orders up to June 1940 are completed. Especially because the French and British have dollar reserves until the second quarter of 1941 only and would want to avoid actual Lend-Lease.
 
Last edited:
I've made it part of canon already. As I've said before, the Germans shifted to trying to murder the Jews of Europe in late 1941 OTL, when it became clear that they wouldn't have an easy contest in the East and so the original plan to work them all to death wasn't viable. There are many hypotheses for why things transpired as they did, and that means this timeline will proceed as if this is the correct one.
This means that Operation Reinhardt (which killed about 1.5 million Jews from March to October 1942) started a year earlier than OTL but otherwise ran pretty much as planned. Given the pre-war Jewish population of Poland was 3 million and there were significant numbers in Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia, 2 million dead is IMHO a low-end estimate, but I don't think I've sat down and done the maths. That sort of actuarial work is far too depressing.
Actually, after thinking it trough, I think your'e right. Considering they in OTL they needed a few months to set up the camps and that in 100 days in 1942 they managed to kill allmost 2 millions of Jews- it might definitly be possible.
 
Actually, after thinking it trough, I think your'e right. Considering they in OTL they needed a few months to set up the camps and that in 100 days in 1942 they managed to kill allmost 2 millions of Jews- it might definitly be possible.
I was the one who did the math (back in 2015!) and the post is at https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/a-blunted-sickle.287285/page-302#post-10394740 . It was early in the TL, but functionally the Nazis had reached their greatest extent. Basically the rule of thumb that I used is to basically assume the Nazis shipped Jews and other undesirables to the killing camps everywhere they had shifted to some level of Civilian control with adjustments for how easily the Jews and undersirables could run. The only question that I have is whether Slovakia shipped its Jews to the campus or not.

Since we are still pre-Doctor' plot, the Jews in the Soviet Union don't have it much worse than Russian Christians and in some ways better than other ethnic groups. (The Armenians (to pick an ethnicity) might fight to free Armenia from Moscow's control, but the Jewish areas of the old Russian Empire were intermingled with everyone one else in a way that few other groups were. Then of course if they do want to fight for their homeland, he can just let them (all 4 million (rough calculation) of them?)head for Palestine and give the *BRITISH* a massive headache. Imagine 1947 if the Jewish population of Palestine is *twice* or *thrice* the population of the Muslims rather than half. (And that would be enough that if the British tried what they did iOTL, that Cyprus might become plurality Jewish!
 
Interestingly in this timeline while Nazi Germany was defeated, fascism itself was not. Some countries might still up with openly fascist political parties being active.
Like, oh, Italy?

This is indeed the point, India leaving does not change any of that. OTL post-war India stayed in the Sterling Area for a good few years after independence and it was US pressure/Bretton Woods/wartime debts that caused them to finally leave. Those thing don't apply here so I can see India staying in even longer, particularly if they leave on slightly better terms.

Informal Empire, Sterling Area, whatever you want to call it I think it is an much stronger position than OTL and remains un-fallen-apart.
We may be talking at cross-purposes here. What I'm defining "British Empire" as in my head as countries with a British Governor appointed by the Colonial Office in Whitehall and accountable only to them. I absolutely do not see the "Informal Empire" falling apart at all - indeed I think it will have been strengthened by the war, particularly in South America.
What I'm anticipating is that a large number of colonies will transition from the formal to the informal empire, that India will support this, and that because of the very large Indian diaspora we will start to see India setting itself up as a second nexus (after Britain) within this informal empire.

I gather that this sentence is primarily focused on British TTL history.

So in TTL, did France build the Savannah heavy-manufacturing complex, and build additional heavy industrial capacity in Quebec? (Intended in OTL, but events intervened.)
I've not written about Savannah, partially because this is a UK-focussed timeline (I'm British - write about what you know!) but also partly because finding sources on it is really hard. What there is available isn't promising - in summer 1940 it reads like essentially a green-field site a long way from the rest of American heavy industry. Realistically, given the length of the war (we're currently 18 months on at this point) it's never going to make a significant contribution

Did France still force the reorganization of the Metropolitan aircraft industry by geographical manufacturing location?
Assume no changes are initiated after May 1940 - you really don't want to do that in the middle of an emergency. Post-war something of this sort is probable.

Did significant elements of the French industrial labor force remain influenced by COMINTERN direction, to the detriment of production rates?
I've not seen this anywhere. What I have seen - at least during the phony war - is stories of known communists being called up to keep them from spreading trouble in the factories, and then demobilised to keep them from spreading trouble in the army. Repeatedly.
Realistically once France is invaded and Paris captured (and subsequently liberated) I don't see this being an issue. There will only be a very small number who prioritise the USSR over their own country in the circumstances - it's much easier in a phony war.

The pre-May-1940 activities of the French side of the French British Purchasing Commission had established a pattern, involving French purchase of large quantities of aircraft and transport-vehicles. (That also involved negotiations for land around Savannah for the aforementioned industrial complex, and discussions with infrastructure suppliers and potential materials- and subcomponent-suppliers.) Does that pattern remain unchanged in TTL, or is it somehow radically reversed?
The big French purchases - much like the later British ones when they also took over the French orders - were heavily driven by panic. It was a case of buy whatever you can, NOW. By autumn 1940 that will have eased off somewhat - they've beaten back a huge German attack, recaptured Paris and most of an Army with it, and the British are on the continent in force. I think it's unlikely that we will see the cancellation of existing orders, but quite probable that what they're actually ordering will radically change.

Without talking for pdf27, the creation of production lines for French equipment in the US would probably have happened and acquisition of machine tooling would have continued, but orders of American equipment itself would probably have dried up in 1941 as the local industry or Franco-US lines ramped up, while orders up to June 1940 are completed. Especially because the French and British have dollar reserves until the second quarter of 1941 only and would want to avoid actual Lend-Lease.
Dollar reserves is something you can work on, particularly as the US really doesn't have any other potential export customers apart from possibly Japan. With the Germans clearly on the back food, I think the US sensitivity to loans dragging them into a war will ease and at least to some extent they'll be able to finance what they really need.

One important point however is that non-Dollar production (in France, Britain, their various empires and the Franc/Sterling zone) will be rapidly ramping up at this point, and a lot of it will be good stuff. For instance the Ford factory at Poissy was tooling up to make Merlin engines in 1940, and was one of the biggest and most modern plants of it's type in France at the time. That's ~1,000 Allison engines you don't need to import per year, and there are endless instances of this sort of thing.

Another is commonality between Britain and France. We've already seen it with steel helmets where both are adopting a common design, but you'll be seeing it elsewhere as well. The two economies are shackled together at the hip (the Bank of England has underwritten all the French loans at a fixed exchange rate -> essentially the two countries now have a single currency), and that means they can play a lot of games with supplies.

The only question that I have is whether Slovakia shipped its Jews to the campus or not.
I don't intend to write about it, but assume they didn't - the Germans will concentrate on stuff under their own control first, and by the time they've got the spare capacity to be bothering the Slovaks it's late 1941. No matter what Tiso wants, by that point nobody with half a brain is going to go out of their way to help the Germans, and so the Jews of Slovakia will be saved by bureaucratic inertia.
 
About India, I think that split is more likely than being unified, the differences between Hindus and Muslims were too big. About the only thing they agreed was that they want British out.

So, if British try to have single India, I think it will break apart soon, because I think they will not be able to agree about Constitution or about anything else. So, even if British impose some provisional Constitution, resulting India will I think be pretty internally focused on it's own problems.
 
The Soviets should start to become a factor in naval calculations. Aside from buying various German ships, including Bismarck their own construction should be continuing unabated TTL. Which means continuing work at the 4 Project 23 battleships and the pair of Project 69 battlecruisers, as well as the fifth Ploject 23 being laid down. Yes the ships are likely to be of questionable quality but Entente intelligence will be that the Soviets are building 5 65,000t battleships 2 40,000t battlecruisers and something in the order of two dozen 10,000t cruisers and several dozen destroyers. While TTL you have not had much in the way of a naval fighting.

So the RN will feel confident to stick to its 7 modern battleships, when news come of the Soviet and Japanese naval programs plus whatever the Italians are building post Impero? Same for France. My expectation is that with the war over the French are building at least Clemanceau and Gascoigne to ensure parity with the Italians.
To be fair, in October 1940 Stalin and Molotov ordered that no new battleships were to be laid down, Sovetskaya Belorussiya was to be scrapped (having been suspended mid 1940 due to poor construction) and the focus was to be on completing Sovetsky Soyuz. ITTL I imagine that this would still happen, with Sovetsky Soyuz perhaps completing some time in 1944/5, and the other two ships finishing 1947/8, given there were major bottlenecks before the war with boilers, turbines, and armour plate, though Sovetsky Soyuz does have its turbines and the Soviets may have brought some bits like boilers from the Germans.

The Kronshtadt class Battlecruisers were to use German guns designated for the twins, so I presume given they were sunk at anchor in 1940, the turrets were sent across to the USSR some time in 1941 as part of the trade deal. Perhaps with the turrets available they might be prioritised over the other two battleships?

At best, the Soviet Baltic/Northern fleet in 1945 is going to be two modern battleships, half a dozen modern cruisers (2x Kirov, 1x Hipper, and 3x Chapayev) , and assorted obsolete battleships and cruisers.
 
So my thinking is that FDR only just hung on to power in 1940 ITTL, and without a war he's probably not going to stand for a fourth term. The most likely winner of the Presidency is Thomas Dewey in that scenario, and to me he seems very likely to get into a confrontation with the southern states over Jim Crow. With a Democrat controlled Congress and lacking the huge number of Black troops who served overseas in OTL, that's likely to be unpleasant for all involved.
Thomas Dewey might want to do something about Jim Crow, but whether he can have any major impact is another question entirely. Even if he was willing to burn all his political capital on the issue, what would he do? IOTL it took a supreme court built by 20 years of moderate to progressive presidents to end it; no legislature or executive ever did. Furthermore, compulsory segregation (did you mean this specifically by Jim Crow, or something broader?) is heavily intertwined with white only government and single party rule and while abolishing those was eventually done with heavy input from the Oval Office, it was an enormous struggle that I would argue necessitated both a Cold War driven desire to hold the moral high ground and the murder of a fortuitously beloved President.
 
Last edited:
I don't intend to write about it, but assume they didn't - the Germans will concentrate on stuff under their own control first, and by the time they've got the spare capacity to be bothering the Slovaks it's late 1941. No matter what Tiso wants, by that point nobody with half a brain is going to go out of their way to help the Germans, and so the Jews of Slovakia will be saved by bureaucratic inertia.

Sounds reasonable, when I did my calculations, I assumed that the alliance with Nazi Germany equaled the same loss of Slovakian Jews, but Slovakia sending Jews to the campus iOTL doesn't start until March of 1942. And the Pope coming out more against Nazi Germany and what it is doing probably delay things in Tiso's Slovakia even further. So going down to zero the same way Hungary does in my calculations is quite reasonable. Tiso's government *might* be less likely to send Jews who escaped occupied Poland back to the Nazis. Still doesn't mean that being a Jew in Slovakia is *fun* in 1940&1941, but I doubt the French friendly government that replaces Tiso would be anything nearly as Antisemitic as Tiso was.

Maybe this TL will get lucky and Dieter Wisliceny (One of Eichmann's deputies in charge of implementing Ghettoization and Deportation of Jews in Slovakia, Hungary and Greece) will end up will end up in ZWZ hands about at this point of the TL. (Not that he'd be significant to get a mention)
 
Last edited:
On a weird random note, was just reflecting on the fact that in this TL the classic sitcoms Dad's Army, 'Allo, 'Allo and It Ain't Half Hot Mum won't exist. I guess Perry and Croft will write something else.
 
Savannah (...) in summer 1940 (...) essentially a green-field site a long way from the rest of American heavy industry. Realistically, given the length of the war (we're currently 18 months on at this point) it's never going to make a significant contribution.
I don't think what we do know would support "never". Construction of the brand-new Detroit Tank Arsenal took less than 9 months from the signing of the construction contract and the start of conceptual planning to the delivery of the first completed M3 medium tank in April 1941. That project began with 113 acres of farmland and woods, and required construction of surrounding infrastructure, including railroads and highways. The Detroit metro area was heavily experienced with automotive manufacturing, and had a critical mass of every kind of mechanical engineering resource, but there was zero local experience with tank manufacture.

My historical understanding is that the Savannah area wasn't chosen solely because the French members of the French British Purchasing Commission were delighted by the city's architectural charm and pleasant climate. They were offered state and local governmental cooperation on a massive scale, by regional leaders who saw the potential for creation of thousands of good industrial jobs. The initial green-field nature of the project should not be taken to infer that industrial development would be impossible.

If one reasonably assumes that the Savannah planners would have brought in a heavy cadre of engineering and heavy-manufacturing personnel and supporting suppliers to kickstart their project, creation of a plant in Savannah might not have been all that different from the Detroit Arsenal experience. If the Savannah plant could have been built at the same pace as the Detroit Arsenal, intending to create a similar manufacturing capacity, that new plant arguably could have been ready at about the same time.

The B1 ter tank was to enter production in late 1940. The SOMUA 35 tank continued in production with a great need for rate-increase; the SOMUA 40 model-variant was to take over that production as of July. The SOMUA SAu 40 self propelled gun was to enter production in late summer or fall. The H tank production run had been completed, but R40 tanks were still in production and behind schedule. There was an existing production line for AMC35 tanks and existing orders if shortcomings in that tank's manufacturing quality and performance could be overcome. The 39L APC was to enter production in July or August 1940, with a need for hundreds of units to equip, or in some cases re-equip, all the mechanized infantry and cavalry units. Demand for the 37L logistics tractor hadn't been nearly satisfied, even though the existing contracts were completed, due to the perceived greater need for the 39Ls. At some point, the need for a battlefield-competitive next generation tank would have recognized to be of overwhelming importance, and the G1 tank project would have gone forward. And, France had a huge shortage of heavy wheeled vehicles of many kinds, including self propelled guns, tank transporters / recoverers, and logistics vehicles. France had plenty of AFV and heavy-automotive production demand; it was production capacity that was lacking, both for final assembly and for high quality large castings, in addition to powertrains and cannons. It seems apparent to me that new French AFV and heavy-automotive production capacity as of April-May-June 1941 certainly could have been utilized.
 
So, if British try to have single India, I think it will break apart soon, because I think they will not be able to agree about Constitution or about anything else. So, even if British impose some provisional Constitution, resulting India will I think be pretty internally focused on it's own problems.
So without Quit India and indeed with Congress taking part in the Viceroy's Executive Council (unlike the All-India Muslim League) my assumption is that the British will essentially be talking only to Congress and probably a few of the leaders of the Princely States. There are senior Muslim figures in Congress - Maulana Azad for instance is the President of Congress at this point - so I think the British will feel comfortable with them as the representatives of India as a whole. That's of course going to store up problems for after independence, but without the wars following on from Partition I think they're going to have much more freedom to act externally.

Thomas Dewey might want to do something about Jim Crow, but whether he can have any major impact is another question entirely. Even if he was willing to burn all his political capital on the issue, what would he do? IOTL it took a supreme court built by 20 years of moderate to progressive presidents to end it; no legislature or executive ever did. Furthermore, compulsory segregation (did you mean this specifically by Jim Crow, or something broader?) is heavily intertwined with white only government and single party rule and while abolishing those was eventually done with heavy input from the Oval Office, it was an enormous struggle that I would argue necessitated both a Cold War driven desire to hold the moral high ground and the murder of a fortuitously beloved President.
That's why I think it's bad for everybody - by my reading of his character I think he'd try, but I don't think it would go well. Not badly enough to screw up the US economy or anything, but you're not going to see anything as successful as the OTL Civil Rights movement.

On a weird random note, was just reflecting on the fact that in this TL the classic sitcoms Dad's Army, 'Allo, 'Allo and It Ain't Half Hot Mum won't exist. I guess Perry and Croft will write something else.
Plenty of other subjects for them - Hi-de-Hi for instance is one of theirs.

I don't think what we do know would support "never". Construction of the brand-new Detroit Tank Arsenal took less than 9 months from the signing of the construction contract and the start of conceptual planning to the delivery of the first completed M3 medium tank in April 1941. That project began with 113 acres of farmland and woods, and required construction of surrounding infrastructure, including railroads and highways. The Detroit metro area was heavily experienced with automotive manufacturing, and had a critical mass of every kind of mechanical engineering resource, but there was zero local experience with tank manufacture.

My historical understanding is that the Savannah area wasn't chosen solely because the French members of the French British Purchasing Commission were delighted by the city's architectural charm and pleasant climate. They were offered state and local governmental cooperation on a massive scale, by regional leaders who saw the potential for creation of thousands of good industrial jobs. The initial green-field nature of the project should not be taken to infer that industrial development would be impossible.
No, but the Detroit Tank Arsenal is a very different proposition. It's a greenfield site, but experienced staff at all levels are easy to recruit and the supporting Tier 2 suppliers are all local and fully integrated with each other and the contractor operating the plant (it being GOCO).
Literally the only parts of tanks not supported by the existing automobile industry are the heavy castings and main guns. Pittsburgh isn't far away though (with tank hulls being small enough to go by rail), and Cleveland (home of Electro-Motive Diesel, who do use big castings) is only the other side of Lake Erie.
1699258863265.png

The problem with Savannah is the lack of experienced staff and Tier 2 suppliers locally. That's going to really slow things down. The Detroit Tank Arsenal seems to have started build at about the same time the Savannah plant would have ITTL and produced it's first tank in April 1941. Taking ~50% longer than Detroit did is to be honest pretty optimistic (it was after all a record in OTL), which means the very earliest the first tanks come off the line is the end of August - another month at least to get to the front lines, assuming quality is up to scratch. Ramping up takes time, so the production is only ever going to be a drop in the bucket of demand before the end of the war ITTL.

If one reasonably assumes that the Savannah planners would have brought in a heavy cadre of engineering and heavy-manufacturing personnel and supporting suppliers to kickstart their project, creation of a plant in Savannah might not have been all that different from the Detroit Arsenal experience. If the Savannah plant could have been built at the same pace as the Detroit Arsenal, intending to create a similar manufacturing capacity, that new plant arguably could have been ready at about the same time.
Yeah, but that's not at all realistic. You might be able to build the factory, but all your tooling suppliers are in Michigan, Ohio or New York, they don't know you and are used to working in imperial rather than metric measurements. You're never going to be able to recruit as many skilled staff (pattern makers, tool setters, etc.) which will mean you have to train semi- or un-skilled locals.

And, France had a huge shortage of heavy wheeled vehicles of many kinds, including self propelled guns, tank transporters / recoverers, and logistics vehicles. France had plenty of AFV and heavy-automotive production demand; it was production capacity that was lacking, both for final assembly and for high quality large castings, in addition to powertrains and cannons. It seems apparent to me that new French AFV and heavy-automotive production capacity as of April-May-June 1941 certainly could have been utilized.
Of course. Doesn't mean they can actually obtain them - and in any case they're lavishly equipped by German standards.
 
For instance the Ford factory at Poissy was tooling up to make Merlin engines in 1940, and was one of the biggest and most modern plants of it's type in France at the time. That's ~1,000 Allison engines you don't need to import per year, and there are endless instances of this sort of thing.
Are you sure? If I go by this: http://sam40.fr/hercules-et-merlin-...doter-laviation-francaise-de-moteurs-anglais/ (google translate as needed), the plan to produce Merlins at Matford was abandonned in October 1939 with american tooling being explicitly bought to produce HS-12Y-51s instead. In general shortly after the declaration of war, France decided to consolidate on national engine types only with Ford France (aka Fordair with Matford as the engine production factory at Poissy) making 12Y-51s, SIGMA making primarily GR 14M parts, with the licensed Bristol Hercules not being expected until late 1940, and Talbot also making GR parts.

This plan is confirmed by the Frenchair commission as late as June 3, 1940.
 
So without Quit India and indeed with Congress taking part in the Viceroy's Executive Council (unlike the All-India Muslim League) my assumption is that the British will essentially be talking only to Congress and probably a few of the leaders of the Princely States. There are senior Muslim figures in Congress - Maulana Azad for instance is the President of Congress at this point - so I think the British will feel comfortable with them as the representatives of India as a whole. That's of course going to store up problems for after independence, but without the wars following on from Partition I think they're going to have much more freedom to act externally.
Hmm, "problems after independence " is pretty big understatement. Muslims might feel that India isn't their country, if their representatives (ML) didn't take part in creating it.
So, I'm not so sure that the wars/rebellions after independence will not happen. And with 1/3+ Muslims in India, that will hardly end well.
 
Thomas Dewey might want to do something about Jim Crow, but whether he can have any major impact is another question entirely. Even if he was willing to burn all his political capital on the issue, what would he do? IOTL it took a supreme court built by 20 years of moderate to progressive presidents to end it; no legislature or executive ever did. Furthermore, compulsory segregation (did you mean this specifically by Jim Crow, or something broader?) is heavily intertwined with white only government and single party rule and while abolishing those was eventually done with heavy input from the Oval Office, it was an enormous struggle that I would argue necessitated both a Cold War driven desire to hold the moral high ground and the murder of a fortuitously beloved President.
I wouldn't say so, the divide between the Southern Dixiecrats and Northern Democrats has grown and is only going to grow, and the steps to breaking up the white-only government in the South are already in motion. The fall of the White-primary in Smith v. Allright wasn't a close decision, and the prospect of a resurgent Republican party in the North is going to, just as OTL, make major Democratic party operatives like Clark Clifford and Bob Hannegan recognize the value of courting the African-American vote in the big cities and, more importantly, giving them reasons to keep voting Democratic. That's the political impetus to push Northern Dems into supporting Civil Rights and I don't see that changing, WWII or no WWII
That's why I think it's bad for everybody - by my reading of his character I think he'd try, but I don't think it would go well. Not badly enough to screw up the US economy or anything, but you're not going to see anything as successful as the OTL Civil Rights movement.
I don't see Dewey pushing Civil Rights anywhere near as aggressively. The GOP has already been in bed with Southern Democrats with the Conservative Coalition since 38,' and Dewey's record on Civil Rights isn't exactly spotless. See the Democratic attack ad below.

Political expediency is going to rule the day and beyond some verbal support, maybe some tepid backing for a anti-lynching bill, the Republicans are not going to have the wherewithal nor the will to push for Civil Rights, especially if it comes at the cost of Republican economic priorities like trying to privatize the TVA and gutting the New Deal.

The last Republican push for an actual substantial Civil Rights legislation was with Henry Cabot Lodge and Benjamin Harrison in 1890, the party has left the issue by the wayside since and Dewey is far too much of a proper party man to change that equilibrium.
.
1699296842258.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Hmm, "problems after independence " is pretty big understatement. Muslims might feel that India isn't their country, if their representatives (ML) didn't take part in creating it.
So, I'm not so sure that the wars/rebellions after independence will not happen. And with 1/3+ Muslims in India, that will hardly end well.

OTL India still has 200 million Muslims within its borders meaning globally it has the third largest Muslim population of any country


Top 10 Countries with the Largest Number of Muslims (2021):

Indonesia (231,000,000)
Pakistan (212,300,000)
India (200,000,000)
Bangladesh (153,700,000)
Nigeria (95,000,000–103,000,000)
Egypt (85,000,000–90,000,000)
Iran (82,500,000)
Turkey (74,432,725)
Algeria (41,240,913)
Sudan (39,585,777)

So I think you are overstating differences between Muslims and the rest of India OTL let alone TTL.
 
I wouldn't say so, the divide between the Southern Dixiecrats and Northern Democrats has grown and is only going to grow, and the steps to breaking up the white-only government in the South are already in motion. The fall of the White-primary in Smith v. Allright wasn't a close decision, and the prospect of a resurgent Republican party in the North is going to, just as OTL, make major Democratic party operatives like Clark Clifford and Bob Hannegan recognize the value of courting the African-American vote in the big cities and, more importantly, giving them reasons to keep voting Democratic. That's the political impetus to push Northern Dems into supporting Civil Rights and I don't see that changing, WWII or no WWII
Smith v. Allright didn't accomplish much on its own, and though the forces shifting the Democratic Party to be pro-black rights started in the 1920s, the way things progressed in OTL was far from inevitable. Even if the northerners try to embrace the black vote – and though it's unlikely, all sorts of things could happen that return black voters to the Republican Party – a single party split that throws the Presidential race (something that barely failed to happen in 1948 and 1960 OTL) could keep Democratic Presidential candidates kowtowing to Dixie for decades to come.
While some further progress is very likely, if a decent chunk of the civil rights movement comes to embrace violence (as has a good chance of happening if non-violence fails) as the only way of achieving change it could create all sorts of additional setbacks.
 
Smith v. Allright didn't accomplish much on its own
No, but it puts Black voters onto the board and make them part of the political game in Texas, and that is far from nothing. And I think it's also worth noting that African-American are trying to batter down the doors of the white primary rather then trying to turn the TX-GOP into anything worthwhile.
Democratic Party to be pro-black rights started in the 1920s, the way things progressed in OTL was far from inevitable. Even if the northerners try to embrace the black vote – and though it's unlikely, all sorts of things could happen that return black voters to the Republican Party – a single party split that throws the Presidential race (something that barely failed to happen in 1948 and 1960 OTL) could keep Democratic Presidential candidates kowtowing to Dixie for decades to come.
Roosevelt had abolished the 2/3rds rule (and with it, Dixie's stranglehold on the Democratic nomination) back in 1936, and by 1940, the Liberal-Labor wing of the party had firmly been ensconced as it's leading wing, and would remain as such for the foreseeable future. Any Democratic nominee post Roosevelt is going to have to be acceptable to the liberals and that is going to rule out any-outright segregationists. A 3rd party Southern split throwing the election to the House isn't going to convince the Northern Democrats that they need to know-tow to Dixie, it's going to convince them that the Dixiecrats are a bunch of reactionaries that can't be relied upon

It's worth noting that back then, New York alone has 8 more electoral votes then the four southern states Thurmond won in 1948(47 to 39). Democrats didn't embrace the African-American vote out of the goodness of their hearts. They embraced it because it would help them win.

And, fundamentally, to get a return of black voters to the Republican Party would require a Republican Party that actually considered African-Americans an integral part of their governing coalition and rewarded them accordingly, and that, would be going against Republican trends of a past half century. McKinley and Roosevelt marked Republican acquiesce to Jim Crow, Taft lambasts reconstruction in his inaugural, Harding and Coolidge did little, Hoover outright embraced a 'lily-white' strategy in the South, and it's the congressional coalition between Southern Democrats and Republicans that denies FDR a working New Deal Majority from the 1938 elections onwards. The Republican Party was already well along the winding road to the Southern strategy.
While some further progress is very likely, if a decent chunk of the civil rights movement comes to embrace violence (as has a good chance of happening if non-violence fails) as the only way of achieving change it could create all sorts of additional setbacks.
And it would, but as long as it remains confined to the South, and as long as it's seen as a sectional issue, a southern problem brought about by the racism of southern whites you are going to get northern support for a desegregating the South.
 
OTL India still has 200 million Muslims within its borders meaning globally it has the third largest Muslim population of any country




So I think you are overstating differences between Muslims and the rest of India OTL let alone TTL.
Yes, add there additional 350? millions in Pakistan and Bangladesh, that's about 550-600 millions. A bit less than 1/3. Plus, these additional are pretty concentrated in some border provinces, not scattered around every city in India.
If that isn't the recipe for instability, I don't know what is.

And if I'm overstating things, then why we do have Pakistan and Bangladesh in OTL? Just because British beat the Germans easier and quicker than OTL, all these factors don't dissapear.
 
Last edited:
Top