Fear and Loathing in Bruxelles - Cold War TL

I've looked at what has been diccussed and I will change the UN date to be created pretty much after WW2 however I still feel that it will be a weaker version - as Jack Hawksmoor has mentioned. The reason I'm going to carry on with the UN being weaker and it's creation would be create a forum for talking [As well as legitimising governments] rather than creating an active presence.

But with the Italy question - it was more due to the meddling of the USSR and USA. I idea being that the USA opened dialog with the USSR to sort the issue out as the USA at least the immediate post-war is obsessed with not having another start. bearing in mind they lost a lot more people than OTL with the invasion of Japan so they're not willing to get straight into another battle or war just yet. Fair enough they wouldn't go to war over Italy but at the time they were more willing to calm the situation down as they don't want another war to break out. The Italian Situation was unique as they had the largest number of Communist supporters in the west eventually growing more than what they had OTL. This isn't going to be a regular occurrence for the USA as they get back to being more assertive which quickly happens.

Looking at Biological Warfare surely going from the action of WW2 with the bombing of civilian populations would city based targets be more of priority than military based one due to the issues mentions. As they would be more at risk and a more effective target for the enemy?
 
[FONT=&quot]Forums for talk[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]From hindsight it is easy to see how communism used to ongoing conflict in the Pacific to its advantage as it was able to further penetrate into European nations who by all parties involved understood to be on the Western Allies side of the “Split”. With both North Italy and Greece, Stalin continued to deny any overt action by the USSR in support of the two nations however he was quick to praise the people in their act of rising against the upper classes to direct their nation in a route dictated by the people. The 1946 Crisis in Europe did however create a Second sphere of Communism as North Italy, Greece and Yugoslavia were Communist nations who were not directly under the control or occupation by the USSR or Red Army. Following the Venice Summit of 1949 they would create a pact of three – somewhere alienating themselves from that of Stalin placing them in the middle ground. This change of the political landscape in Europe held to define to creation of the early stages of the European Commonwealth as the many in Western Europe felt that Communism was indeed creeping towards them at a rate that was too fast for their liking. As with the USA in the 20’s as well as the late 40’s and early 50’s Western Europe too would eventually find itself in the midst of a Red Scare with many of the communist party members such as in France and Germany escaping in exile to North Italy rather than face persecution. The event did lead to a second attempt at a global meeting place for countries to sort out problems similarly to the League of Nations previously.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The United Nations would be formed following the Second World War officially in 1946 with the main purpose stopping the world from recreating the world wars – there had already been discussions with the creation of the organisation in 1945 surrounding the creations however it was officially adopted in 1946. It was headed by the USSR, US, UK and France. With the inclusion of the USA many historians have cited that it in theory should have developed into something that was more effective than the League of Nations. The United Council was created within the United Nations for, in theory once more, nations to come together and sort out geopolitical issues with the first one being that of the Italian Divorce. However even with this first issue being tackled showed the problems with the UN and UC. The USSR and USA overall took over the discussions, pushing the UK to the side and pretty much completely ignoring France. A main cause was the push by the US for France to focus more on their own country and let them [USA] to bring peace to Europe once more. Overall the UN acted as only a force of discussion rather than that of action – neither superpower had any real upper hand over the other in the early years for any action to be fully dealt with. The Italian Divorce itself only come into being though to the USA, not wanting another civil war, conceded the North to the communists however did push for the new state not to a lined with that of the USSR.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The problem with the United Nations lay with the two Superpowers. The USA attempted to push the UN on most events while the USSR content to revel in their own sphere. The division between the two powers ruined the any attempt of dealing with issues the UN was formed to solve. The increasing militancy of both nations failed to solve the division and if anything pushed the other countries away into their own more localised bodies to talk to solve their own issues such as within Europe or the British Commonwealth. Obviously the UN wasn’t complete bad and was more effective in some ways than its predecessor, the League of Nations. It actively pushed for adherence to the codes of combat and did actively get involved in some peacekeeping operations especially in the late 1950’s onward.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]=====

[/FONT]
This has been edited into the second update to hopefully make the UN part of the segment less ASBish

Thanks to Jack Hawksmoor to pick up on this blunder on my behalf and I hope it is now at better level than before.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
 
So the United Council is what, a more powerful version of the UN Assembly?

That the UN is the overall organistion with all the different departments for all the different areas and the United Council is pretty much the UN Assembly but under a different name.
 

Prologue Part III: Europe Wasn’t Rebuilt in a Day



“This is about a Community of Free Nations making free choices. By working together we can solve issues that have plagued our nations for centuries.”
Robert Schuman, 1952​


Marshall Plan

Communism had indeed grown in Europe, further than what many in the United States hoped or feared. Europe was still ruined beyond belief –its towns and cities reduced to shells of their former glory. However an act passed in 1948 called the European Recovery Plan – also referred to as the Marshall plan [1] after the Secretary of State George Marshall. The plan itself was designed for the United States to economic aid to the states in Europe such as the United Kingdom, France and West Germany. It’s reasoning being that the United States wanted to create a strong Europe so that it would not fall victim to the communism. The United States did extend the plan to Eastern European States – although they though the will of Stalin rejected it although North Italy would gain a small amount of aid mostly though Togliatti’s stance against Stalin. The premise of the Marshall Plan was simple – give money to Europe so they can rebuild their nation from the ground up. It also helped to push for a restriction of trade boundaries in Europe which helped with the start of the European Communities in 1952. From between 1948 – 1951 the United States spent around $130 Billion [2015 equivalent] much of it split between the allied states in the second world war who were given priority over those who were neutral or had been part of the Axis. It was something that undoubtedly allowed the European nations to get back on their feet allowing certain economic sectors to come out of the war in a better and more advanced state than it had been pre-1940.

Europe: 1946 – 1950

Many European Nations had their own ways of dealing with the recovery – with the help of the Marshall Plan many would see their economies bounce back. However for countries such as France the following years would still be tough. Charles De Gaulle[2] had helped to form the Fourth French Republic in early 1946 and joined the United Nations in the same year following the conclusion of the Second World War. France perused a policy of creating jobs and reducing unemployment as well as creating social security programmes which was welcomed by the French people whom many had their life savings removed during the occupation. However France still had to deal with issues especially in their colonial empire. Indochina was a key ground for his with 30 000 French soldiers killed by 1950 it would crisis in Indochina would last till 1955 when France essentially handed the problem over to the USA to deal with as they clutched at supporting the UN. France to would come into contact with Europe’s version of the Red Scare with the French Communist Party increasing under threat as the French people became concerned with the Communist North Italy on their border. Many members of the French Communist Party would flee into exile in North Italy[3] as did many across Europe.

However it must be noted that the European Red Scare as a whole was on not on the level of that which occurred in the USA. In nations such as France the Communist Party gained a large amount of support from voters something France was not keen to upset by going the same route of Italy. The European version mainly consisted of the hardliners and their supporters leaving France and French Authorities looking for enemies of the state – mostly under the guise of looking for Nazi collaborators. Some Politicians from the US would mention that, in their view, Europe had a lacklustre [4] response to the threat of Communism.

Some nations such as the United Kingdom struggled through the 1946 following the harsh winter which didn’t help the economic situation they found themselves in following the war. The combination of limited fuel supplies and housing didn’t help the Labour Government who had taken power in 1945; this was an issue that Attlee had to deal with. The Government initiated several acts of Parliament to alleviate the issue with the main one being the 1948 New Towns Act which designated towns outside of London to improve housing construction – these included those such as Stevenage, Basildon and Northampton. The United Kingdom would find itself stretched between their Empire and Europe. Between 1945 and 1950 the Labour Government under Attlee announced several social reforms such as the aforementioned New Towns act, NHS [1949] and an increased looked into voting constituencies. Nationalisation also became a key aspect of the Labours 1940’s government which became a key issue in the 1950 General Election which Attlee ultimately won. Following the 1950 election victory Attlee [5] started the path of the United Kingdom looking more towards Europe as he was keen to push back against the Soviet threat. This change of focus was helped by the notion by the British Government of independence of some of its colonial possessions with the dissolution of British India in 1950.

The Three Communities of Europe



“I am not Churchill nor am I Truman.”

Apparent reaction by Clement Atlee on de Gaulle’s Anglo-Saxon [6] comments before the Treaty of Paris, 1952

It soon became apparent to many European Nations that in the face of the Communist threat they would have to work together in some form or another. This led to the beginning of the formation of the Three Communities of Europe; Defence, Political and Trade Communities. Complications within the creation of the communities generally came in the form of French and their concern with West Germany. The French feared that the outcome of the talks between the nations surrounding the creation of the communities would give West Germany too much freedom – mainly in terms of rearmament. It was the French politician Robert Schuman who spearheaded the Pro-Communities camp within France, stressing that the threat that may be placed on Western Europe from the Communist East be paramount to some form of action to secure the west. He felt that the creation of a grand alliance of Western Europe would help safeguard itself as free democratic nations. As what was clearly shown in the creation of Northern Italy the Communists would continue to encroach over – what he perceived as – the weaker nations, in terms of defence and economy. He envisioned a strong united Europe that could stand up to the east on its own – in which he emphasized the French Position to in an attempt to appease the Gaullist percentage.
The Communities came in three separate but linked organisations. Firstly the European Defence Community [7] would ensure a united front against any possible incursions of aggressive foreign forces within Europe lands. It would give a clear command structure to better organise such united front. The European Trade [8] Community would create a common market place for the transfer of trade between nations though means such as lifting trade barriers giving all countries involved a fairer import and export of goods. Finally the European Political Community [9] would create a forum for all nations involved to have a place to create discussions about the course of Europe as a whole and the course of the other communities. Schuman stressed that overall co-operation and communication between the nations would be key for Western Europe’s prominence in this new world and its continued success.

As previously mentioned the European Defence Community gained traction through the European states seeking security amongst each other against their united concern with the Communist East. It wasn’t helped the Red Army continued presence in Eastern Germany and other states within the Soviet Sphere of influence. The EDC’s success in its early days came be seen with the increased co-operation between the United Kingdom and France. This in turns gave confidence for the other member states that of the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Denmark to agree to join. West Germany who had only recently been given its sovereign independence through the treaty was given its military back however under stick control over the following creation of the European Political Community. West Germany was given relaxations on the size of its land based military however air force and navy was still under strict control – in addition no German was allowed to be assigned head of any part of the European Political Community where it could have direct control over command of the European Military. An issue with the Community was that it was to defend European countries rather than their overseas holdings. Its aim was to stop in the beginning was to stop communist incursions at home not communist uprisings in their colonies – though many countries did help out each other in colonial crisis although they were not through the use of the EDC.

The European Trade Community was the main goal of Robert Schuman. Its original goal was an attempt to create a long lasting peace between France and Germany through a shared pool of important war goods such as coal and steel. Without complete control of these goods it would force the two nations to work together rather than wage war therefore removing the need for competition for resources between nations. However it blossomed into something further with the inclusions of other Western European nations. It continued to focus on the raw materials from its creation before evolving further mostly by that of the British Government attempting to steer focus from coal in a way to not upset the British coal mining community. The Community did have opponents in Germany with many such as Karl Arnold concerned with which was essentially French control over their coal resources which completely negated the purpose of the organisation. This was further backed up by many in Germany who were annoyed about this seemly attempt of French officials carving up regions of Germany for them to exploit. They had already agreed to the repetitions to the western allies and felt that this was just another French attempt to strip Germany dry of resources. Luckily for Schuman the general public didn’t share the same opinions as German Ministers such as Arnold. It passed through all nations involved without issue with the expectance of the United Kingdom with a slim majority. It can be noted that many arguments for the push towards the ETC was an attempt to organise Western Europe into a position where it would not be easily dominated by the USA. While collectively still considering the USA a useful ally to the European Nations many European politicians such as Charles de Gaulle still felt that in some ways Europe was as much at a risk of domination by the USA as the USSR however it was clear jam at economic domination as opposed to compete domination. Although signed in 1952 with the Treaty of Paris along with the other communities the full effect of the ETC would not be fully felt until it’s evolution into the European Economic Community in 1958 where it was given further controls over cross nation economic conditions.

The European Political Community was formed as a compromise of the creation of the previously mentioned communities. Its formation both secured an attempt of created a united European front to both military and economic matters while giving a place for the European nations to discuss matters of importance to Europe. Signed in the Treaty of Paris the headquarters of the Community would be held in Luxembourg, amid point between France and Germany before being moved to Brussels in 1956. The EPC would consist of an elected portion [European People’s Assembly], a section of appointed representative from each member nations and another legislative branch created for the EPC where it would deal with legal, juridical and other matters for the community. It would be in theory directly responsible for the formation of laws so that the other two communities would run smoothly and orderly. Like the rest of the communities it would undergo periods of change and reform which slowly allowed the EPC to gain more power.


--------------------------------
Notes
[1] Marshall would still be in office and I would have assumed the Plan would be created in some form or another. I also understand that I haven't said a lot about the Marshall plan but it wasn't too different from OTL I just wanted to mentioned it so that it's obviously it happened.
[2] Still not in charge of France.
[3] Would be somewhere in the numbers of 2000ish from around Europe during the Scare of ''46
[4] This would later influence American cynicism against these European Communist sympthatisers which would become heavily emphised in areas of American pop culture.
[5] Although Winston Churchill would lose to Attlee he would vocally support the European Communities along with Attlee.
[6] De Gaulle was concerned with the UK being a backdoor for the US to influence Europe further.
[7] With a stronger and more real Soviet Presence and following more interest by the UK this plan goes through into reality
[8] The ETC is this TL's version of The European Coal and Steel Community
[9] With the creation of the Defence Community a Political Organistion was required which I've attempted to show.

--------------------------------
Authour's Comments

I just want to point out I admit I am not the most knowledgeable about economics and politics that would work but I have tried my best an attempt to show the creation of organisations. As always if I have completely misjudged or been completely naive on some political/economic aspect please do let me know so I can learn and adjust aspects.

I shall be moving onto colonial issues/USA/USSR/ in the next parts. I just wanted to get the post war recovery out of the way and the creation of communities out of the way so what they do in the later years can be better talked about.
 
Last edited:
Interesting idea here! What about posting a worlda-style map every now and then about the current (geo-)political situation?

I shall do so when I've neared the end of the 1955's world as it will give me more to work with.

I like the TL. Subbed

One nitpick, if Northern Italy became communist would not the allies split off South Tirol and give it back to Austria?

Well Austria would be still under occupation - North Italy would have already controlled South Tirol something which the Allies didnt have controll over.
 
Well Austria would be still under occupation - North Italy would have already controlled South Tirol something which the Allies didnt have controll over.

There was negotiation over this in OTL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Tyrol#Gruber-De_Gasperi_Agreement

And I would think the allies would give backing to Austria getting it as it would mean less land in Europe under communist rule which would be something that leaders like Churchill would have massively wanted.

Edit: Just a thought, would the UK give Cyprus at some point in the future to the non-communist Greece to strengthen it?
 
Last edited:
There was negotiation over this in OTL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Tyrol#Gruber-De_Gasperi_Agreement

And I would think the allies would give backing to Austria getting it as it would mean less land in Europe under communist rule which would be something that leaders like Churchill would have massively wanted.

Edit: Just a thought, would the UK give Cyprus at some point in the future to the non-communist Greece to strengthen it?

Well that is a good point you've brought up - something which i've glossed over. Well I would still place that N. Italy would continue to have it as I'm sure USSR would stop any changing on land especailly as it's still under the control of N. Italy

I haven't had time to look at that just yet but what if Crete ["Free" Greece] got pushed towards joing Cypress rather than the other way around. I have continued for Crete to have King but I would suspect the Royal Family to go before any meaningful attempts to create Cretian-Cypress Union
 


Chapter One: 1950s

Schuman’s Europe [1952-1960]

Part I


Europe during the 1950s was one that had begun the process of rebuilding and reconcile. By 1952 the Western European nations had signed the treaty of Paris which started them on the path to a joint pact bring them closer together. The three communities allowed for further recovery at a faster rate with the relaxing of trade barriers as well as a new defensive union against any communist aggression. Robert Schuman, the main artist of the treaty, would be empowered by the European Political Community [EPC] as its President in 1952. His goal would be simple – that of strengthening the bond between the nations. The 1950’s would also see the further inclusion of European nations into the Communities with Norway and Denmark’s joined attempt at membership being approved by the European Communities in 1957. Even here both nations had different reasons for joining. In Denmark’s case it was most economic and the nation felt that it was a natural path for the nation to take. For Norway [1] it was economic but also military – it felt under support of Britain and the US joined in hopes of better protecting itself against a Communist threat. Regardless of their reasons on the whole both were accepted with open arms into the communities.


Blue Africa Project

“I suppose it is fitting that the empire building in Africa starting in Germany and it will now end in Germany”President Nixon [2], 1955 on the Hamburg Conference



Robert Schuman used his presidency of the European Political Community to bring the Community members together to discuss the situation of de-colonisation. It would bring discussion between the European nations who had empires to collectively start to pace that would lead to the end of their empires – although obviously it was not put in this was outwardly during the discussions. Schuman stressed the urgency to retain the support of those regions in the fight against Communism. It had already been known that Stalin before his death in 1954[3] was actively support groups in regions such as Africa and Asia. This was easily pointed out with the Egyptian-Soviet link in 1952 following General Nasser’s Coup also in 1953. Even before the start of Schuman idea there had been attempts at decolonisation such as in British India and Dutch Indonesia in 1950 however Schuman recognised the issues that had come after especially in the new nations that came out of British India. By 1953, the Indian Republic and the Republic of Punjab [4] and warred with each other and Hyderabad had become annexed by India. Although at the time it was clear that Communism had not become entrenched in any of the new states Schuman understood how the situation could become different in nations within other regions such as Africa. He didn’t want the European nations to engage on expensive campaigns in these areas which would both may allow Communism to become embedded and pull resources from the European mainland. Though his position in the European Political Community was supposed to revolve around the co-ordination of the other communities and mainly that of the European Defence Community he felt that it was job to defend the Communities interests – what the interacts with the decolonisation issue.
The Hamburg Conference would lead to tension mostly between the powers of Britain and France, whose both government were not too happy with a foreign body intervening in their own practises as they already had the United States breathing down their back about such matters. However it was made perfectly clear that they were not being forced into giving their empires up immediately but the conference were there so that when the action occurred in that it would be a joint effort to allow for stability of the regions that were left. Further evidence of the necessity of the Conference was highlighted in the Indo-china situation following the French exit the previous year which left the state vulnerable to the effects of Communism as seen by the division of the region. The Conference itself did not openly attack communism more so stating openly that it was the nation’s responsibility to manage the colonial situation with great care. However it this anti-communism view can be clearly seen in the private talks between the nation’s representative and in their actions post Conference.


The Hamburg Declaration also known as the Blue Africa directive [5] was a unified plan regarding to the step by step decolonisation of Africa by European powers. It really served more of united voice of Europe regarding their attitudes to their Empires. On paper the declaration seemed like a step of Europeans liberalism at their colonies however the actions taken were more in another paranoid state at Communism. The USSR had a new leader following Stalin’s death and therefore made it difficult for the European nations to understand the paths they would take during their term.

Even within the declaration each nation took different paths when it came to decolonisation. France quickly dismantled its empire in North Africa [1956-1965] as they focused on guiding the nations such as Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria in their seeking of independence. They took a different view to that of Britain as allowing the smaller states to become independent with the thought being that they could more easily control the smaller nations in their pseudo-empire. This mentality was easily attacked by both the United States and the USSR who both became upset about the French continuation of their control in the region – as they saw France continuing to retain both military bases and considerable amount of economic control over the newly created nation states. To start with in nations such as Ghana and Sudan, Britain attempted something similar to that of France with the creation of smaller states but they would soon look to another plan when it came to decolonisation. The planning of creating larger unions of colonies in an attempt to create a state that would have more regional power, making it easier for themselves to contain the spread of communism. It also took a look at strengthening nations such as South Africa along a similar line. [6]

Suez War



“BRITAIN AT WAR!” - Headline of the Times Newspaper, November 2nd 1956



The Suez War would be a conflict that would once again test the resolve of the European Communities as well as the strength of the British and French.
The Origins of the war would begin in 1953 [7] following the successful coup by General Nasser against the Egyptian Royal Family. What started out as a simple riot in Cairo soon grew to a full uprising leading the Egyptian Royal Family fleeing to Britain which left Europe shocked at the escalation of the event. Nasser would eventually seek allies in the USSR in attempt to deal with the Egyptian economy and military, culminating in meetings with Stalin and Soviet Officials in 1953. The USSR was all too happy to oblige and began sending over equipment and experts to help their new Egyptian allies – Nasser would however never fully accept Communism in his country but he saw them as a perfect ally to help solve his main goal – of retaking the Suez Canal. The Canal was still effectively under British Control even after the coup and the Government was keen on keeping the Canal Zone. However it wouldn’t be until late 1956 when the conflict would begin.


-----



“The Conflict itself would start following the unsuccessful attempt of a coup by pro-royalist forces funded by the British Government. This put the Egyptian military on high alert and through high tensions within the Egyptian ranks lead to the Ismailia incident.

“It quite worrying how easily a war can start isn’t it? I don’t know who fired but that was all it took – one young person’s itchy trigger finger. To be honest through we had already been through a coup a few year previously and with the new fighting in our towns and cities many of the young soldiers were ready to get their own back on the English. Obviously at the time no-one knew that it was them who helped the Royalists in their attempts at getting control of their country but inside most people believed the English and something to do with it and it wasn’t helped by us being told to move towards the canal for ‘pre-cautionary measures’.

I heard recently that there was a report from some American University, I can’t remember which one but it said that the Egyptian command actually ordered the regiment to fire at the English so that they could retake the Canal. Personally I’m not sure if I’m inclined to believe it but a part of me does see the rationale behind that.

From the start on November 2nd we felt so strong. Our new T-54’s overran the English and took control of the central Canal and pushed both North and South. I remember we had a huge celebration on November 5th when we got news from our higher ups that we had taken Port Said from the British. My 25 year old self was so happy, we celebrated into the night even when our officers tried to stop of and get us to focus on our job we just ignored them. Though thinking about it we cheered too early and I should have expected the English to hit us hard eventually. It was the 8th when they their counter attack started right and they retook Port Said by the 10th? [Interviewer Nods]. Yeah that must be right; my Tank Regiment was ordered north to help stop the English pouring out of the region. I do feel sorry for those troops in the south, during the siege of Suez.

When the French also joined it became obvious we would lose – how could we win? Facing against both England and France? At least my war ended sooner than others. On the 15th we were surrounded by the English and Captured and that was where I spent the rest of the war – a prisoner of war. I remember thinking that it must have been the world shortest war on the 24th when we found out that Egypt had surrendered – I guess they couldn’t deal with the English and French army pushing towards Cairo. In all fairness though, looking back I think being captured was the best thing that happened to me as it allowed be to stay in Sinai following it creation. My family were defiantly not happy when they learned that I failed to return to Egypt but I guess they forgot about that when the Anti-Nasser riots started and they fled to where I was.

War defiantly changes you - it made me who I am today. I regretted many things I did during the war but again I think that is why I helped in the Sinai Government after the war, I guess a part of me felt like I had to pay back and help people rather than destroy. I just hope the future of Egypt and Sinai continue in a peaceful relationship.” Prime Minister Hamadi Bitar, Prime Minster of the Republic of Sinai [1973-1977], talking in 1997 on the 40th anniversary of the Republic of Sinai.



[Hamadi Bitar would be known as a quite open speaker about the Sinai War, later writing several books on the situation following his term in office and would become a leading spokesperson for the Global Anti-War Organisation.]

-----

The war itself would last from the 2nd of November to the 24th of November 1956. It conclusion would both be at the behest of the USSR and the USA. Nasser’s relationship with the USSR would somewhat sour following the war feeling backstabbed that the USSR did pretty much nothing to aid the Egyptians during the conflict. In conclusion would lead to the creation of the Republic of Sinai [8] whose role was to independently govern control over the Suez Canal so that neither Britain nor Egyptian would retain control. This would eventually lead to outrage in Egypt culminating in Anti-Nasser Riots in many of the Cities. Nasser would still continue to have control over the nation although at a much less popular level. The war did relieve some pressure from the UN in finding a homeland for the Jewish people [9] as it expressed its desire to settle many in the new republic but this lead to confrontation from the surrounding Arab states. Between 600-700 000 Jewish people would move into the nation though many within the community expressed their desire to have a nation for themselves causing more issue for the UN

France had joined into the conflict under regards to the European Defence Community as Britain was seen really as the defender in the conflict. Other member states such as the Netherlands and Belgium also joined in but to a much lesser degree, both sending around 2000 troops each to aid Britain focusing mainly in the Egyptian Cyrenaica region. Surprisingly for the British Government the public reaction was that of an anti-war sentiment – many of whom didn’t want to be involved in a war even though they were attacked. Much of the public viewed the conflict as a pointless endeavour in a region which they shouldn’t have controlled in the first place.


--------------------------------

Notes





[1] Norway shares a border with the USSR so they would rather have some backup.

[2] 50’s Nixon? – Taft is elected President in 1952 but dies from Cancer in 1953 leaving Vice President Nixon in charge. This was done for two reasons, Firstly no Korean War and no NATO leads to changes to Eisenhower’s movements [chopping down to butterflies and from what I read the stalemate in Korea lead to a rise in support for Eisenhower’s election draft movement] and doesn’t run for president. Secondly who doesn’t like a little bit of chaos!

[3] Stalin’s heart last a little longer

[4] The Partition of the British Raj goes along a different path due to a longer wait for the creation of the Partition – this will be looked at in a further section.

[5] The term Blue Africa Directive is really a post-cold war term referring to the Capitalist ‘Blues’ vs the Communist ‘Reds’

[6] Although this does refer to post 50’s decolonisation but I felt that it was important to refer to it here.

[7] Later Egyptian Coup but really along similar lines just with Nasser taking most of the control

[8 Although supposed to independent of Egypt or Britain, Europe would continue to have strong links with the nation – In a similar way to how Israel has a relationship with the USA.

[9] This has been a key issue in the UN but has found difficulties in finding a suitable homeland in which the Jewish people are happy – made more difficult with Palestine being a county in 1950 which makes it harder for the UN to set up Israel.
 
Last edited:
Given a few key physicists carried off by, say, the Spanish Flu you might delay the necessary nuclear discoveries a few years, say enough to prevent a Manhattan project, and the costs of maintaining larger conventional armies after the war would tend to block any projects on quite so large a scale after the war, but the recognition of the fact that you should be able to make a big boom with the right sort of atomic reaction isn't one you can delay for long without massively changing the development of science in the 20th century, with correspondingly massive butterflies.

Atom bombs are expensive, but if you are willing to go slow and incremental, it's nowhere near as bad as a crash project like the OTL US and USSR efforts. Also, given a Cold War, loads of money will be spent even on marginal ideas, let alone one Top Physicists say is possible: both the US and USSR OTL had Psychic Research projects going on, after all. For a history that looks like OTL up to 1945, I don't think you can realistically delay the development of atomic weapons much past 1970.

An atomic arms race that starts with both sides already having the capacity to strike at the other's heartland strikes me as interesting, in the Chinese sense...

Re the Suez war, if Berlin is divided as OTL, putting the squeeze on it would be one way for the USSR to pressure the allies without having nukes to wave around. How was it again that Israel failed to form?

Bruce
 
Given a few key physicists carried off by, say, the Spanish Flu you might delay the necessary nuclear discoveries a few years, say enough to prevent a Manhattan project, and the costs of maintaining larger conventional armies after the war would tend to block any projects on quite so large a scale after the war, but the recognition of the fact that you should be able to make a big boom with the right sort of atomic reaction isn't one you can delay for long without massively changing the development of science in the 20th century, with correspondingly massive butterflies.

Atom bombs are expensive, but if you are willing to go slow and incremental, it's nowhere near as bad as a crash project like the OTL US and USSR efforts. Also, given a Cold War, loads of money will be spent even on marginal ideas, let alone one Top Physicists say is possible: both the US and USSR OTL had Psychic Research projects going on, after all. For a history that looks like OTL up to 1945, I don't think you can realistically delay the development of atomic weapons much past 1970.

An atomic arms race that starts with both sides already having the capacity to strike at the other's heartland strikes me as interesting, in the Chinese sense...

Re the Suez war, if Berlin is divided as OTL, putting the squeeze on it would be one way for the USSR to pressure the allies without having nukes to wave around. How was it again that Israel failed to form?

Bruce

1 - I do understand that situation and I am really having trouble to find a reason why the Atom Bomb hasn't been fully realised yet but I was running with the idea that the cost would put off a nation form building one and would look at more chemical/biological weaponry.

I did have an idea that once the space race get on the way that is what could help both the USSR/USA focus as they both fight each other over space and put more funding into it.

However I may still have to concede that the Bomb will be built as you say by the 1970's

2 - I may have to revise the POD - maybe to nip this situation in the bud but once again I'm really lost in how to do that..

3 - If they do get the bomb by the 1970s and the capability to hit each other at home I would personally curious about their willingness to use it as they wouldn't have seen the effect first hand when compared to OTL as the world knew what the bombs could to as all they needed to do is look at
 
I see really being made in the 50s to 60s max. Truly it should have been made by the late 40s.

And when the bomb is made, all those. chemical/biological weaponry are going to be throws out the window for something far more powerful and deadly.
 
I see really being made in the 50s to 60s max. Truly it should have been made by the late 40s.

And when the bomb is made, all those. chemical/biological weaponry are going to be throws out the window for something far more powerful and deadly.

I know it was supposed to be made in the 40 :D But the point of this TL was supposed to be [well now at least for the time being it seems] about a Cold War without nukes.

However apart from the Atomic Bomb Issue have I royally screwed up anything else? :p
 
Republic of Sinai - by 1961

YJuzSm5.png
YJuzSm5.png

 
Top