Kalter Krieg - a TL of a three way cold war

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kongzilla

Banned
Next part is up.

Although Portugal was one of the first countries in Europe to fall victim to the general post-Great War European trend of abandoning democracy in favour of authoritarian and fascist regimes, it has also been one of the more skeptical ones towards the confrontational attitude the cold war powers displayed. An integralist regime, it did not follow an expansionist, racist, militarist agenda, nor did it have a “leader figure” the type of Benito Mussolini or Adolf Hitler – or other such that were heads of the fascist states. It drew mostly from the principles of Catholic traditionalism and strong conservative, strongly opposed to communism, anarchism and liberalism, both in political and economic agendas. Like most fascist states it venerated the “traditional rural lifestyle” while simultaneously supporting modernization – though in its case, the fascist regime meant to control the modernization effort very strictly, to the point of near-regression. Regulations and state control were imposed on all branches of life and economy, the population heavily invigilated by the PIDE secret police. Censorship was introduced on all types of media, with civil liberties and freedoms being repressed in order to maintain power and curb communist/liberal influences. Political dissidents were imprisoned and exiled into prisons constructed on archipelagoes on Cape Verde. All political parties were sidelined, with only the União Nacional (National Union) remaining present – though technically they weren’t banned, and opposition members were legally allowed to run for office.

portugal_salazar.jpg


António de Oliveira Salazar, the fascist dictator of Portugal

Portugal had been the most fringe of the European fascist states, mostly uninterested in the great ideological confrontations of the world. Being located far from the USSR, it did not see Marxism as a direct threat; having historically close ties and friendly relations with Britain, it had no reason to change that. The Portuguese fascist system called “Estado Novo” based itself on the Italian model, though unlike it or most other fascist states, it did not call for expansion or glorified military to excess. While it did use the greatness of the past Portuguese colonial empire that spanned the globe as a tool of generating national pride (the Ultramar), it did not demand sacrifices for “restoring past glory” – but merely for bettering the situation at hand without constantly looking backwards. The motto of the regime was "Deus, Pátria e Familia" (meaning "God, Fatherland, and Family"), with national and catholic values being praised and imposed on the population. But overall Portugal did not develop the same degree of totalitarian rule as Germany or Italy did. While prison and exile were common punishment for opposition members, death penalties were seldom issued. State control was heavy in the cities, but the broad rural countryside did not feel its pressure on a day-to-day basis. Churches and religion were treated lightly even when directly opposed to the regime’s actions. While paramilitary organization such as the Legião Nacional or Mocidade Portuguesa were created, membership wasn’t obligatory and their “ideologicalness” was rather weak.

portugal_Mocidade.jpg


Mocidade Portuguesa rally in Lisbon, 1950.

Anti-communism was present in the ideology, and also one of the reasons Portugal moved closer to Germany – the threat of losing Macau or East Timor to communist China being too big to ignore and without western guarantees of support, the Reich was the only option, especially after the Taiwan Crisis when Germany had proven itself to be willing to stand up to its promises of protecting anyone from communist expansion. The loss of its possessions in India had shaken Portugal’s faith in “British-Portuguese friendship” but it has not terminated it, Portugal trying to keep a balance between Britain - with which it felt close politically and sentimentally - and Germany, to which it was attached militarily and economically. Portugal refused to join the anti-comintern pact in 1938 when it was first given the offer, but accepted it in 1950 when it also joined the OMEWZE with a “special status” to take into account its pluricontinental nature. Portugal never did impose the same type of chauvinistic racism most fascist systems were known for, allowing blacks to serve in its military and administration, though restricted to the non-metropolitan areas.

portugesesoldiers.jpg


Blacks were allowed to serve in the Portuguese military and administration, many of their language and survival skills being deemed useful by the colonial regime.

Fascist policies of autarky and creation of a “secondary world market” built around “fascist principles” rather than capitalist ones had been a great aid for Portugal. The economic concepts of “fascist unity” mostly revolved around Germany forcing the states of central Europe into buying its products, selling it things cheaper than market rules would demand, restricting them in other ways, an all that being forced via the threat of military intervention, sanctions, clever diplomacy which pitted the various states against another, offers of benefits in some areas as return for support, appeals to some greater values such as “white unity” and others. The central European states were more less dependent on Germany as their greatest market and trade partner, as well as lacking in the ability of ridding themselves of that dependence – not having the infrastructure to independently trade with the non-fascist world or being to small to establish a truly diversified economy. Thus they were in a position where they could be “bullied” by Germany. Portugal, while small in both territory and population, wasn’t in such a position however. It was the only fascist state with access to significant deposits of rare natural wealth – oil, metals, bauxites, jewels, etc., making it too valuable even for Germany to push away; its marine heritage technically giving it the option of trading freely with the entire world. However, sticking with the fascist states and being part of the OMEWZE gave it a position of an almost monopolist in many areas, allowing it to sell resources from its colonies at prices higher than the global market set them on. This was initially seen as a good reason to stick with Germany, though it would also show certain flaws when the time came – the monopoly being based only on German/fascist principles of prioritizing trade with other fascist states rather than basing them on economic value, thus when the détente came and trade with the west was liberalized, Portugal’s position in the block declined. Monopolies also weren’t really good at modernizing and Portugal did fall behind technologically in those areas it prided and enriched itself on – again, when met with “fair” competition being unable to stand up to the challenge.

Portugal’s economy was based on extracting resources from Angola and Mozambique, shipping it to Portugal to be processes and sent further into central Europe/the Mediterranean, or sending them directly to those countries. It’s industrialization thus followed the same patterns as the central European states – industries being established with the aim of supplying more developed economies with pre-manufactured goods. Portugal had the benefit of being able to sell those same resources to other countries in the Atlantic (and even China, Portugal being the most “economically connected with a communist state” fascist country, Macau serving as gateway to trade with the PRC), mostly to obtain so called “hard currency”. But it failed at using that freedom at developing advanced domestic industries. Portuguese roads would be filled with Italian cars and Hungarian buses, its airlines using German aircraft, household appliances and chemicals originating from Czechia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, etc. It’s main point of pride was it’s marine industry and shipyards – Portugal owning one of the largest merchant fleets in the world, another boon of fascist allegiance as its rather liberal policies regarding the use of its flag made many people and businesses from fascist states register their fleets in Portugal.

portugesemine.jpg


German equipment was used extensively in mining and other colonial industries.

For Portugal, it’s colonial empire was more than just a matter of maintaining profits generated from it, or the prestige being a colonial empire provided. It was a matter of ideology. Under Salazar, the Portuguese philosophy of “Estado Novo” had come to evolve, the colonial empire playing an important part in it. Education, propaganda, religion – all had aimed at ingraining in the minds of the Portuguese people that their colonies in Africa were a “national treasure” or “family heirloom”, thus being priceless. All sacrifices were acceptable to preserve it. Staying true to the fascist philosophy of “propaganda having to be dumbed down to the least intelligent listener”, these type of slogans were used and mixed together with other, more known ones – such as “White’s Man Burden” or “Aryan Superiority”. But the “least intelligent” were not the only ones targeted and indeed the Portuguese colonial policy had backing among economists and political scientists. Angola and Mozambique were resource rich and thus provided a “natural wealth deposit” which even if unprofitable gave Portugal “economic independence from the trends of the global market”. Keeping it made just as much sense as keeping a standing army despite there being no war, as it was “better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it”. “Estado Novo” aimed at creating a spiritual connection between the people of the metropolis and the colonial assets, even though it didn’t outright support settler-colonialism. While quite some of it was drawn from the German “Blut und Boden” philosophy, it wasn’t copied; in fact, it would be the German “New Agrarians” (as they were called in the political circles of the west) who would come to adopt the Portuguese colonial ideology – “Lebensraum” being meant as a steady pool of necessary resources, blacksoils in the past, rich veins presently; rural-colonial presence being unnecessary other than “mining towns”, established for the sole purpose of extracting whatever goods was hidden in the earth for the benefit of the volk – be it the food formerly, oil and metals now. All this was “sprinkled” with moral philosophy which was meant to justify sacrifices made in its name as well as provide an excuse for errors and problems, which only grew in size and number with time.

portugal_painting.jpg


Lusotropicalism would be greatly romanticized in Portuguese propaganda, used as a justification for colonialism

The Portuguese Bush War began in the early 60’s along with the other decolonization movements in Africa, though it grew in intensity by the middle of the decade. Opposition to decolonization was an important part of Portugal’s general policy on the international stage for which it was criticized by the west – though that criticism had little effect as the great colonial empires of Europe were at the same time waging their own wars to keep their possessions. Many African anti-colonial movements called for total independence of the overseas African territories from Portugal, invoking the right of nations for self-determination, of them, most demanding a Marxist-based system; nationalisms and “liberal western” influences being very weak in those areas, the revolutionary ideology being more appealing to the people. The Portuguese leadership tried to answer those calls by introducing new policies of “civilizing missions” in the colonies and sharing more of the interest generated from selling colonial natural wealth with the colonies themselves; Salazar even going so far as to propose “assimilation and multiracialism” in the colonies rather than an “apartheid” system as it was, much to the displeasure of Germany. Those efforts were in vain however, as with revolutionary forces growing stronger all over in Africa, the local rebels were able to gather more supporters and power while the promises of the colonial regime remained on paper only. The ultimate withdrawal from Central Africa by Britain in 1968 was an important moment for the revolutionary forces in Angola and Mozambique, as they were finally given a permanent “sanctuary” to hide in as well as a supply base – Soviet and Chinese weaponry being unloaded and provided for the forces in both east and west “Portuguese Africa”, Central African also becoming the place where their political and military leaderships would meet to better coordinate their struggles, their soldiers to receive training with the help of Soviet experts.

portugal_salazar_africa.jpg


Salazar inspecting his troops in Africa

Initially being a number of loose militias living of terror and looted weapons, following no particular ideology other than fighting the fascist colonial regime, the rebels in Portuguese Africa had gotten a new face with the official formation of the People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) in 1964. While not the only organization fighting against Portugal, nor the only one to have a communist background, it was the only one to have direct Soviet backing and thus being more successful in its action. Support came through Belgian Congo and East Africa; many of the veterans of the wars in East Africa, Central Africa and Congo and other African conflicts coming to join them, the southern parts of Congo being utterly lawless and a “sanctuary” for all the failed rebels of Africa who fled the repercussions of their failed struggles during the 60’s. The organized paramilitary force was led by Ilidio Machado, initially having 7000 soldiers, but those being well trained and experienced in fighting guerrilla wars, as well as armed with modern weaponry provided by the USSR and China. Against them Portugal fielded a colonial army commanded by Venâncio Deslandes, being almost 50000 soldiers strong.

portugal_128-lm.jpg


Portuguese soldiers in Mozambique. Difficult terrain was a huge logistical problem for infantry.

First clashes occurred in the northern parts of Angola, where Portuguese targets were attacked by forces from bases located in southern Congo, the rebels receiving logistic support and cover from the local population. This allowed them to quickly spread into the Angolan central heartland where they operated in small groups, attacking Portuguese military installations and posts – mostly the small ones, so as to break the soldiers morale, force them into operating in larger groups, thus leaving other areas less defended – Portuguese war resources being limited from the start. The forces of the MPLA grew in membership, especially once it allowed women to join its ranks, growing into a 15 000 strong force by 1968, while the Portuguese colonial forces grew smaller, not being given sufficient reinforcements. By 1970, the MPLA was strong enough in Angola to be able to launch terror attacks in urban zones – thought of as being “safe”. Explosions in Luanda and other cities shook both the local and metropolitan population, as colonial administration personnel died in the attacks – being proof of the war not going in Portugal’s favour despite propaganda claiming the contrary. Mozambique was not in a better situation, where the Marxist FRELIMO waged its own war against the Portuguese, mimicking the tactics of the MPLA, loosely collaborating with each other, holding meetings in Central Africa. This collaboration would only grow stronger with time, and with those two being the most successful anti-colonial fighting groups in Portuguese Africa, they would grow in size, influence, membership – and effectively take over (or destroy) other anti-colonial resistance movements, particularly those of “tribal identity” or “black nationalist” ideology – the Marxists aiming at being the only possible political representatives of the Angolans and Mozambicans at the international stage. The USSR supported that goal, stylizing itself as the “advocate” of the “oppressed people of Africa”, also being the major power to pressure Central Africa into allowing anti-Portuguese rebels on its soil and for them to organize better – eventually leading to the formation of the “United African Front for the Liberation of Angola, Mozambique and Guinea” in 1972 as the alliance of anti-Portuguese forces in Africa (and anti-Belgian/anti-South African to a degree) supported by the USSR and Central Africa – and being increasingly successful.

portugal_Infanterist_mit_Sturmgewehr_44.jpg


Portuguese commando infantrymen with a German assault rifle

The failings of the Portuguese colonial forces in keeping order led to a change in leadership, Venâncio Deslandes being replaced in 1971 with Francisco da Costa Gomes, his main mission on the new post being preparing and launching a major counter-offensive against the rebels. Starting in April 1971, the colonial army in Angola began a large, broad-front offensive with 35 thousand soldiers being used in the operation – many of them being commandos and special forces as well as mercenaries – the Portuguese Bush War becoming infamous as the first large-scale conflict where a state-power would use mercenaries in combat operations as well as heavily emphasize waging “irregular warfare” against its opponents. This tactic, while moderately successful at repelling rebels has also had big downsides – irregulars being left in the African jungles without direct command would often go rogue and act against orders, involve itself in criminal activity including war crimes (later blaming them on the rebels) or outright deserting, morale being not particularly high among the soldiers, especially the black ones. The nine-month offensive has been a short term success – while it managed to rid a large part of Angola of MPLA presence, it did not destroy it, its operatives either going into hiding and being sheltered by the locals or fleeing to Congo and Central Africa, Lisbon not allowing for the Army to pursue them there. The colonial army had been mostly ill-prepared for the situation at hand, still being locked in a conventional war mentality limiting its effectiveness – difficult terrain and logistics causing many fatalities from injuries, disease, poisonings, etc. Thus once the offensive was complete and the situation relaxed, the guerrillas would once again seep into the country to wreak havoc, bringing the situation back to square one. The entire operation had also been a great loss of face by Portugal due to a great deal of war crimes and other questionable conduct having taken place, including wholesale evacuation of tribes and village, forcing them deeper into Africa or even from Angola itself. Civilian casualties were high, as were desertions. While specifically denied to be that, the war in Portugal was becoming viewed as more and more as a “race war” between the whites and blacks by both the Portuguese people and the Africans - Portuguese denials to that being the case actually taken as a confirmation. German, Western and Soviet reports of the situation in Angola and Mozambique not making the situation better, as all of them kept the tune of the wars there being a conflict between “racist Portuguese whites” and “freedom fighting blacks”, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of that becoming just that – and helping the Africans in getting unity, fighting the war as a war of national, racial and class liberation at the same time, propaganda having something in store for anyone willing to fight.

Portugal_MLPA.jpg


MPLA child soldiers on a parade.

The “racial context” of the war was more complex though – Portugal not wanting it to descend into that territory and be viewed as such. The colonial regime had employed many blacks from the very start of the war and over time the ratio of black-to-white troops in the colonial army would actually rise. Whereas in 1963 the Portuguese forces in Mozambique would have about 10 000 whites and 5000 blacks, by 1971 it was 22 000 whites to 23 000 blacks. Portugal had little restrain toward promoting blacks as officers or creating mixed-race units, meant to both instill a sense of unity, tie the blacks closer with the state and dismiss claims of “racial segregation” in the army – the last one happening though, with plenty of units being “accidently” gathered in a way to make them mono-racial. The “anti-white war” card also wasn’t as effective among the rebels as a motivator as many had chosen to abandon their struggle when an opportunity arose – that mostly being offers of amnesty and financial gain in return for giving up arms and fighting. It was estimated that by 1971 about 8000 rebels had been “bought off” by the colonial administration or even turned against their former leaders. Nevertheless, the racial element of the war was among the more important reasons for Germany taking a rising interest in the war – next to the economic and ideological ones.

The colonial wars has had an extremely negative effect on the Portuguese economy, using up much of its resources – in 1971, the war effort’s cost took up 40% of Portugal’s budget and was expected to grow. Many young people were reluctant to participate in the war, choosing emigration instead – mostly to France and the UK, an estimated 1.5 million Portuguese leaving the country in the 60’s. Political parties were established “in exile” as well as at home in hiding – such as the “Communist Party of Portugal” - though it never truly dissolved, members keeping its individual cells going, waiting for an opportunity to re-emerge. Student groups were the ones taking the most active stance against both the war and repressive governmental policies, being the ones where both communist as well as democratic sentiments were the strongest. This would be the source of the Student Crisis which occurred in 1965, when in a “preventive move” the PIDE secret police arrested a number of students suspected of being tied with communist groups, a number of student associations also being declared closed. This had caused an outrage, leading to a boycott of school lessons by the Portuguese students in Lisbon, who demanded the release of their friends and re-opening the closed associations. The reaction to the boycott were further repressions and arrests coupled with expulsions from universities. The spiral of tensions went even further with a massive student demonstration taking place in November 1965 in Lisbon that was suppressed by riot police. The result had been over two dozen wounded, many being expelled from school or transferred – and many teachers resigning from the universities as a sign of protest and solidarity with the students. Tensions and anti-governmental sentiment grew, with the economy getting worse, war weariness growing and the repressions of the government becoming less tolerable for the general population which would become more outspoken about demanding reforms and change.

portugal_demonstration.jpg

Student demonstration in Lisbon, 1965

Under these circumstances, Lisbon was forced to look for relief, and Berlin was an obvious destination. Germany had itself good reasons to participate in the war in Africa, initially economical and “prestigious”, but the ideological ones grew in importance – especially among the internal opposition towards chancellor Hanke. The war had disrupted many of the key facilities extracting resources meant for Germany and has also led to a general increase in prices of goods sold by Portugal despite OMEWZE regulations – the possibility of ending, or at least calming the situation being understood as a way of restoring balance and lowering the cost of imports (Germany having troubles affording substitutes to Portuguese resources on the free market). Military presence in Angola and Mozambique would also grant Germany enormous leverage in future relations with Portugal as it would give them significant control over those colonies – the German Kriegsmarine being significantly more powerful than the Portuguese navy, should a conflict arise. That the rebels in Africa had been “open communists” also did help, as despite the détente being in operation, Germany never abandoned its goal of “containing communism” in every part of the globe – that being realistically a great boon to Germany in foreign affairs as it almost universally considered as a “more certain ally” when it came to fighting communists. Many South American or post-colonial states would turn to it specifically for that reason, fear of communism and revolution being the central point of their political views (or their propaganda which they used to keep the population scared). Upholding the image of a stalwart “bulwark against communism” opened many doors in terms of military alliances, followed by military equipment sales and trade, and later into outright mutually-beneficial politico-economic cooperation.

Portugal_Salazar_Berlin.png


Antonio Salazar in Berlin, greeted with the traditional salute.

Initially German involvement in Angola and Mozambique was limited to stationing guard troops in many facilities and areas deemed “strategically important” by the Germans, relieving the Portuguese there from duty and allowing them to participate in actual fighting. Germans had been present in Africa even before that, as Portugal used a great deal of German weapons and equipment, German instructors and trainers educating the Portuguese, as well as gathering information of their weapons performance in combat situation and difficult climate/terrain. The first batch of German troops was only 3000 strong – less than what was sent to Thailand – who arrived in Angola and Mozambique in early 1972. This development barely made it to the world press, as it was only reported in the sixth and eight page of the “Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung” and “Völkischer Beobachter” respectively, “The Guardian” placing a mention of it on the fifth, while “The Daily Telegraph” failed to report it at all. Despite that, it would be a turning point in the Portuguese Bush War – for the first time, Germans would be the ones to shoot African anti-colonial militias, as well as being shot at by them, suffering first loses.

Just as Portugal had been greatly unprepared to wage an irregular war in the Angolan jungle and deserts, only getting the hang of it in the later years, neither was Germany despite observing the war for some time; in both cases, “conventional warfare” training received at home before dispatch was inadequate for the situation the soldiers would be placed in. Traditional German tactics of emphasizing squad automatic weapons as the main firepower of a team, supported by a marksmen and riflemen were effective in open terrain, but not in areas densely covered by vegetation. German air support was also limited, as it was still the Portuguese air force that was present in Angola and Mozambique, not the Luftwaffe. German soldiers would often act against orders when engaged by rebels, pursuing them into the wilderness despite their objective being protecting sites, not taking action – which was to be done by the Portuguese. But low morale, slow reaction time, linguistic barriers and racial prejudice had all come to affect the entire “cooperation”, Portuguese soldiers not reacting to German calls for reinforcements or demands for taking action against fleeing opponents, failures of capturing/killing them being blamed by the Germans on the lack of Portuguese professionalism. Low-tier officers and NCOs would demand from their superiors to be allowed to be given a more free hand in dealing with threats. Racial issues would also arise, Germans not wanting to be ordered around by African-Portuguese military personnel, who were also most often blamed for all failures – the entire Portuguese policy of allowing blacks into the administration and military being reported as the reason for continued failings of the Portuguese to suppress the rebellions. The German command would allow for greater involvement of the German military in combat situation, also dispatching the SS to Angola, mimicking the Portuguese use of commandos and counter-irregulars; special training grounds would also be erected in Angola meant for arriving Germans to receive special training in the new environment; the main German boot-camp being “Camp Lettow-Vorbeck” outside Lobito. The first Commander in Chief of the German Forces in West Africa, who would also be responsible for setting up much of the German military doctrine in irregular African warfare would be Genaralmajor Siegfried Muller – who would also be one of the most controversial personas in the Portuguese Civil War, both due to the unquestionable effectiveness of his policies and actions – as well as their costs, in human lives and material loses.

portugal_kongomuller.jpg


Genaralmajor Siegfried Muller, Commander in Chief of the German Forces in West Africa

Portuguese commanders would be quite welcoming to German “demands”, as for them greater German involvement meant lower casualties and less engagement. This of course wasn’t what the Germans expected, as their goal was for them to be an addition to the war, not a replacement. Yet increasing freedom of action on Angola and Mozambique went hand in hand with more troops and equipment being sent there – in 1974 already 12 000 Germans would be present in Angola alone, another 8000 in Mozambique. The German Luftwaffe would also mark their presence, acting not only as scouts but also close air support and strategic bombardment. Germany would have much less reservations against taking action in Central Africa in Congo leading to numerous bombing runs taking place there against rebel encampments there. Germany would take a much more active approach against fighting the insurgents and initially, it would show to be effective – German organization and material superiority managing to effectively protect supply lines across the colonies, untold checkpoints being established helping in controlling population movements (and rebel maneuvers, hampering their preparations). German tactics would encourage sending large units for long patrols so as to allow them to get a better grasp of the situation and come up with innovations and take up initiatives – Portuguese tactics of re-acting to rebel activity and protecting urban areas/strategically important sites being deemed as “too defensive”. Those were couple with extreme brutality however – German commands had for example established quotas on how many rebels ought to have been captured/killed in every operation, leading to the soldier capturing o killing civilians when not faced with resistance (the rebels having escaped). German soldiers were outright exempted from any liability for war crimes, Berlin openly stating the MPLA and FRELIMO were not protected by the Geneva Conventions, justifying harsh repressions. Looting had also been de facto allowed by the Germans, gathering “African souvenirs” becoming something popular among the German soldiers. On the other hand, the German command did not introduce rotations in service in Africa – those sent were meant to stay there for as long as necessary, leading to those who have managed to survive becoming battle-hardened veterans – while also leading many who sought to escape service into self-mutilation. The war in Angola and Mozambique would be called the “African adventure” by many Germans, expectations being a quick victory in a manner of months, two years at worst – expectations which would not be met.

portugal_JungleNazi.jpg


German soldiers on a raft in Africa.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
Next part is up




Although paradoxically the USSR had been the most calm of the global great Power of the cold war, only going down the warpath in the far eastern war (though depending on some interpretations of when the cold war started, the wars in the 20?s were counted as well), which in turn was often considered a justified intervention due to Japan’s former actions. Compared with the UK and France who routinely used force to suppress insurgents in their colonies, or Germany, which invaded Yugoslavia and kept the Berlin Pact together with a silent threat of force, participating in the wars in the Taiwan Strait and Portuguese Africa, the USSR did appear to be more peace-looking than its competitors. On the other hand however, no country in the world spent as much on supporting rebels, military insurgents, terrorists and other such groups than the USSR did; it itself was no stranger to using force, keeping Japan in line with the threat of aerial bombardments, occasionally flying its airplanes over Japanese cities without authorization. It was the expansionism of the ideology Russia stood for that made it so feared and despised, as it almost never refused to support socialist revolutionaries regardless where they were - from the Caribbean and South America, through the western leftist terrorist groups to post-colonial African and Asian states, not few of which won their independence thanks to the struggle of the soviet-armed communists.

Thai_Communist_rebels.jpg


A communist militia camp in Columbia. The USSR would be able to supply and support such insurgents through various means, regardless of distance.

South East Asia was one such example, with the countries of former French Indochina all turning towards communism after the French withdrawal - Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos all ending up with their own local flavor version of Marxist philosophy. Among them, the most frightening were the Red Khmers of Cambodia, a radical group formerly attached to the Communist party of Indochina which took power in the state of Cambodia in the early 60’s. Following the Versailles Conference in 1960, where Cambodia was represented as a separate power to Vietnam, it declared independence as the “Republic of Cambodia”, with Son Ngoc Minh as President and Prime Minister – and while his Khmer Issarak government was meant as a “government of national unity”, the movement itself was completely dominated by the communists. After only one year, during which the radical agrarian-communists faction led by Pol Pot would gather its strength by constructing the actual administration of the war-torn country, Son Ngoc Minh would be voted out of office, replaced by Pol Pot. What would follow was a purge of the Khmer Issarak, renamed into the “Communist Party of Kampuchea” (or rather, it becoming the only allowed party within the Khmer Issarak, which was more of a coalition of various parties, the CPoK being one of them, the rest being banned, their members arrested or executed), the country itself becoming the “Democratic People’s Republic of Kampuchea”.

Thai_Red_Khers.jpg


The “Khmer Rouge” would be one of the most brutal and radical versions of communist ideology.

French withdrawal from Indochina had put Thailand in a dangerous position, becoming the new “frontier” before communism and the “Asian bulwark” against it. Having been supportive of the French (and British) in their conflicts, it had managed to win itself much greater independence. While nominally an independent state before, it was under extremely heavy influence from both the French and British, reducing it to a near-colony status – a status that was managed to be “lifted” during the course of the war in Indochina, when both Paris and London were willing to give in to Thai requests for the sake of keeping peace and not expanding the conflict. The problem occurred however right after the French withdrawal, as it made Thailand much less important in the eyes of the west. Ironically, once Thailand itself became the next “potential target for communist expansion”, support from the west for it had begun to decline, not grow – as it was the Malaya and India that were the new priority for the UK, while France had abandoned Indochina entirely. This was even more awkward when taking into account that Thailand had actually been more defensible than Indochina was – communist expansion there having to take place as a “foreign invasion” rather than a guerilla war, and a conventional conflict, something the west was actually quite well prepared to do. Germany was quick to see the opportunity for political expansion, capitalizing on being perceived as a strong force opposing communism globally, signing the Anti-Comintern Pact with Thailand in 1966.

Thailand would nevertheless be extremely isolated, geographically being a “lone island” of fascism in Asia. Border clashes with Laos and Cambodia would be a rather common occurrence, raids into each other’s territories becoming a standard tactic of “checking out” their respective militaries preparedness. Seeking to increase its guarantees of German commitment – which many in Bangkok felt weren’t as strong as they might have seemed, due to the détente in Europe lowering tensions between Germany and Russia, leaving Thailand “out of the loop” as it’s conflicts with neighbors weren’t resolved. “Paranoia” was the main feature of the state, the regime creating an enormous system of invigilation, secret police and militarization of the society – and with the country being under a real, constant threat of war, introducing those policies was not met with as much resistance as many thought they would.

Thai_militarization.jpg


Military parade in Bangkok. Displays of military strength would be common in Thailand as part of the general militarization of Thai society.

With Germany detonating its first atomic bomb, much of the world went silent, while only a few cheered – those few being those who saw it as a Wunderwaffe, capable of stopping entire armies in one blow. Germany realized the political potential of nuclear weapons quickly, when its allies came to it asking for those weapons to be given, sold or at least exchanged to them. Berlin was somewhat cautious about doing that however, being a monopolist not wanting for such an advantage to be lost, and not wanting for “reckless deployment” to sour its relations with other global great powers at a time when they seemed to be improving. But that was however the exact opposite of what many German allies wanted; with relations between the Reich and the communist powers being worse, they expected to be able to get more from it, by being seen as “more important”. Bangkok thus had no intention of participating in the détente, though it also had good reasons for it, as neither did Laos or Cambodia.

When in 1972 Germany strengthened its “Ostasiengeschwader” in Taiwan, rumors of Germany planning to expand its bases in Taiwan to construct silos for nuclear missiles or airstrips for long-range strategic bombers capable of destroying China began to spread. While strengthening the German garrison there was strongly criticized internationally itself, the possibility of the new “ultimate weapon” being able to burn Asia to ashes became a reality. Quite many scholars actually speculated that a possible future Fascist-Communist war would de facto become a German-Chinese War fought in the Urals and Siberia – with Germany and its allies outnumbering and out producing the USSR, Russia would have to look towards its own allies for support, China being seen as an inexhaustible source of manpower, which would also be safe from repercussions due to it being positioned on the other side of the world than Germany. Thus Germany’s increased presence in Asia was always thought to be a counterbalance to that, meant to threaten China into non-support for the USSR, under the threat of bombardment of cities (a typical tactic of fascist, especially German ones who often spoke out in the Reichstag about “bombing cities to ruins” when others disagreed or tried to oppose German will). Nuclear weaponry had made such a threat even more worrisome, as unlike chemical and biological weapons they weren’t banned (though whether their use against Communist China would be illegal was questioned, due to Germany to recognizing the PRC – that vats of bioweapons were stored in Taiwan as a doomsday device should Taiwan fall was a common rumor) and China could not consider itself to be safe from the effects of a Soviet-German war. Protests against such a move were made, pointing out the disputed status of Taiwan, German troop presence there already being a possible “occupation”, the legitimacy of the government there being questioned.

juef132-2.jpg


The Junkers EF 132 strategic bomber. Germany had been developing those types of aircraft during the Goring era initially for the purpose of destroying Soviet industry and railroads in the Urals, later also to be able to threaten the entirety of the UK and Canada.

While rumors were exaggerated, the idea itself was not alien – Berlin has speculated that such a move was a possibility. However in truth it was Taiwan itself that was opposed to it – its fear being that bringing nukes to Taiwan would provoke the People’s Republic of China into launching an invasion before they could be moved there themselves, and even if they were to manage to be deployed, that they would not stop a full-force invasion. The Thai leadership however did not have such concerns – the possibility of German nukes on its soil was seen as an opportunity to threaten Cambodia and Laos into stopping their attacks, and for China to be leveraged into forcing the two into doing so.

Thus Thailand began preparations for what would become known as the “Thai Missile Crisis”. Before planned joint military exercises with Germany (suggested as soon after Thailand joining the anti-Comintern pact), large facilities meant to house the German soldiers were erected – much bigger than was necessary for the relatively small-scale maneuvers and training. Once invited into them, and their status being reported (very positively) to Berlin, the exercises being an overall success, the Thai Prime Minister Sarit Thanarat would openly ask the German Chancellor Hanke during his trip to Germany for the soldiers to stay there for longer, and for the base to be leased to the Reich (at a very reasonable price, and with significant privileges being given to Germany). Hanke was surprised by this, and while not accepting it outright, he didn’t refuse the offer, postponing his decision. On the night of August 17 1972, an emergency cabinet meeting took place to consider the Thai proposition. Hanke himself had serious doubts about accepting it straight out, concerned about whether doing that would ultimately be beneficial. Unlike his predecessor, or many of the bigger “hawks” in the Nazi establishment, the German chancellor did not consider the establishment of military presence in bases around the world as an obvious asset – being involved in the maintaining the détente, he knew of the repercussions. Since military presence in Thailand would not give Germany a strategic advantage against its primary opponents, it would mostly just translate into prestige and economic benefits from weapons trade with Thailand – something that could be achieved without angering the west and the east. He intended to extend German-Thai military cooperation, but with previous British consent – pointing out the communist threat to it and offering to “take over” protection from the west in that area. However, this was criticized by the cabinet, and much of the high-ranking Party leadership as well as the “hawks” who were much more supportive of extending “German strategic military reach” globally. The argument was that both the UK and the USSR were dependent on their “Asian backyard”, China and India – thus Germany needed presence there as well, if only to be able to threaten the two into not supporting their “masters” in case of a European war. Hanke would ultimately fold to those demands and accept the Thai offer in principle, asking for specific negotiations to be slightly postponed – in which time he could talk to the UK to assure them of Germany’s “peaceful intentions”.

Thai_meeting.jpg


Thai cooperation with Germany expanded after joining the Anti-Comintern Pact, involving not only military matters, but also trade, culture and others.

But things developed differently than Hanke intended, in a large part due to the works of Oskar Fischer, the secretary in the ministry of foreign affairs responsible for the Thai affair. Keeping negotiations about the indefinite prolongation of German military presence in Thailand in complete secrecy, he managed to prevent foreign intelligence from learning about them (despite leaks). His talks with London were also carried out in an ubiquitous manner, conversations with his British counterpart being vague, referring to the possibility of extended German presence in Asia rather than specifically about military bases. It did not help that the UK’s foreign office did not give much attention to Fischer, knowing well that the German centralized decision system made him and his word of little importance – the entire “Thai affair” as it would be called in English press would thus go under the radar. Many in the Foreign Office thought his words referred to Taiwan, not Thailand, something that while still was a hot topic, wasn’t of utmost importance – the UK seeing it as a threat to Hong Kong, but not a terribly large one. Thus when the Thai-German deal giving Germany an en extra-territorial multi-task military base at Don Muang (complete with an airstrip for bombers and the possibility of constructing missile silos), it came as shock to London – rather than a “expected development” as was the German aim. When Germany reached out to Britain at the higher level to talk about the issue – coming in good faith and acting as “good neighbors”, hoping to get British acceptance by offering to share information, and expecting to be met with good faith too - they were approached with hostility. London was furious, German mild-mannerism seen as insulting, its apparent non-understanding to “what the big deal was” making them look like fools. Germany gave them an unexpected, nasty surprise – when it sought not to do it for exactly the reasons that were occurring.

On August 21st London demanded Germany withdraw from Thailand (as it had “promised” it would do before the German-Thai exercises), putting the chancellor in an impossible situation – he could not withdraw from an already signed deal which most of the German establishment supported. As his policy during his rule aimed at bettering relations with the UK, this was seen as a dual betrayal – for him, he was the man that kept anti-British sentiments and pursuits down in the Reich and expected London to be thankful for that. For London, he looked like a traitor who acted friendly only to gain trust – and then betray it by using British goodwill to extend its military reach. British demands was impossible to accept, though it probably didn’t understand that ,thus blowing the affair much out of proportion. With the talks broken and the German delegation going back to Berlin, the “Thai affair” was turning into the “Thai missile crisis” – as the USSR, China and India all started to massively protest against the German move.

Thai_missile_base.jpg


Photos made by British spy planes over Taiwan were used as proof of German hostile intentions.

China was the one most offended by it, Mao taking it as an insult and believing it to be a straightforwardly anti-Chinese move. Having lost a confrontation against India just 2 years before, the Indochinese states not falling into its orbit as expected after the French withdrawal, internal reforms causing mayhem, the Chinese leadership was increasingly paranoid about enemies, both internal and domestic, being the reason for its failures. Those were thought of as being seen as signs of weakness which Germany was now exploiting. After massive political protests, which were ignored by Germany as it did not recognize the communist government and vetoed its attempts to join the League of Nations and other international organizations, the PRC was the first to make an active move in south east Asia, its military entering northern Laos and standing at the Laotian-Thai border on August 22nd.

Thai_China_in_Laos.jpg


Chinese soldiers in Laos, taking prisoners of the handful of Laotian resistance members.

Things began to degrade fast. The Chinese entry into Laos was universally taken as a prelude for an all-out invasion of Thailand – the fact that the Laotian government did not consent to China occupying part of its territory being ignored. The Thai junta, scared of the consequences of their actions, resorted to brinksmanship, requesting that Germany immediately send aid to it to prevent an invasion – more weapons being expected to act as deterrent, despite them being the source of the problem. The German cabinet, after reading reports from both its diplomatic and intelligence services agreed that China was ready and willing to start a war against Thailand – a signatory of the Anti-Comintern Pact. Thus to prevent the war, it complied with the Thai way of thought, sending the Kampfgeschwader 555 – one of Germany’s strategic bomber wings, also specifically meant to carry the newly developed fission bombs – to Don Muang, through Argentina and Taiwan.

The flight of the Kampfgeschwader 555 was one of the most emotional 24 hours of the Cold War. When German bombers were in the air flying to their destination, the world was reaching a state of panic, politicians and diplomats trying to get a grasp of the situation and look for an answer. Talks between Berlin, Moscow, London and the various other capitals of the world on hotlines were as intense as never before, Germany being demanded to withdraw the orders, threatened with the bombers being intercepted, sanctions, etc.

Thai_Junkers.gif


The flight of the KG 555 would be often depicted in future movies about the Thai missile crisis.

The landing of German bomber squadrons (along with infantry reinforcements) was what eventually provoked China into declaring full mobilization of its armed forces on the 24th. Worldwide panic began to grow as the world expected the Thai-Chinese war to result in the German Wunderwaffe being used – though contrary to popular though, those were not present on the planes in Thailand (not that it mattered, as Germany already had functional inter-continental ballistic missiles capable of reaching China). Chinese mobilization was answered with not only Thai, but also Polish, Romania, Latvian and Estonian ones – who feared that with China attacking Thailand, the USSR would attack them simultaneously (Soviet forces having been put “on alert” during the flight of the KG 555 but not mobilized). The crisis escalated into a multi-continental one, with the USSR declaring partial mobilization in answer to the fascist ones – Germany being now asked to do the same, called to honour the Anti-Comintern Pact. Arrests of suspected anti-state oppositionists in fascist Europe began, as did a massive buyout of goods available from stores, many starting to move out of the cities into the countryside, leaving the “danger zones” of expected first strikes. The nervous situation only grew worse with Mao giving out an official ultimatum to Thailand on August 28th. In it, he demanded Thailand to expel all foreign forces from its territory, demobilize, withdraw military from its borders and allow Chinese oversight commissars to investigate its military facilities to ensure compliance with the demands.

Thai_Mao.jpg


Mao reciting his Ultimatum on public television.

The crisis reached its peak. The Chinese ultimatum was universally compared with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum of 1914 which brought the world to the Great War, this one was expected to give the world a second. The only seen options were Thailand accepting the terms, which was known it wouldn’t do, as it would mean falling to the Chinese peacefully, rather than after a war – the latter at least giving Bangkok a slim chance of eventual victory. Preventing the Chinese-Thai war from escalating to a world war would require Germany backing out – which too was known wouldn’t happen, Germany’s global influence being too dependent on its anti-communist attitude, cutting-and-running from Thailand meaning an end to German global great power status. Alternately it could be prevented by the USSR staying out of the conflict and not igniting a war in Europe after Germany being involved in the hostilities in Thailand – something it too wasn’t expected to do, already reading its military and preparing its population for war through media, pompous speeches in radios and anti-German movies like “Alexander Nevsky” being played on television, the call for “liberating the oppressed worldwide” being the battle chant.

Thai_Soviet_preparations.jpg


The USSR was prepared for a second great war should it come to it and was eager to express its confidence.

The Chinese ultimatum was spelled out in a very aggressive tone rather than a neutral one. In it, Mao made numerous “suggestions” that he fully understood the consequences of his actions, referencing many of his previous speeches where he spoke open about defying fascist ambitions and how the Chinese people were ready for a sacrifice of blood greater than in the war against Japan. The threat of nuclear or other devastations was minimalized, called of “little consequence” for China – the loss of dozens of millions being nothing when he had hundreds of millions more at his disposal. To most, the ultimatum was not seen as a bluff like a small minority thought, but an honest declaration of being ready for a total war. Mao thus challenged the leaders of all the global great powers in a game of chicken – threatening to plunge the world in a disaster and waiting for their response.
Almost immediately attempts to reach Mao through any channels were made, to try to talk him out of his ultimatum. Most of those channels went through Moscow, as it was the only major power in the world which recognized the People’s Republic of China. But Russia wasn’t all that eager at trying to prevent the crisis, preferring to use the opportunity to reach out to the western world at a time when Germany could not try to counter its diplomatic efforts – once again, the possibility of an alliance of the east and the west against the centre coming to light, despite London’s and Paris’s general reluctance for war. Moscow purposefully prevented anyone from reaching the Chinese Chairman, going so far as to using an actor to impersonate Mao when a French secretary in the foreign affairs ministry was supposedly “patched through” to him. Time went out when the world unsuccessfully tried to make contact with Mao, who was proving to the world how unwise it was to ignore him and his country for decades. These hours, with many attempted and failed attempts at reaching Beijing made in many capitals of the world, from Washington through London and Paris to Tokyo would later be depicted in countless movies about the Thai missile crisis, most failing to capture the enormous sense of suspense, danger and what was at stake – the anger and sorrow of apparent successes ending as failures due to someone cutting of the connections or simply hanging up on the phone.

Thai_Red_phone.jpg


The “Red phone” would become an iconic item of the Thai missile crisis.

What eventually came to prevent doomsday was the involvement of chancellor Hanke himself. 8 hours before the deadline, before which emergency meetings of the Nazi party and cabinet were held to discuss the situation and course of action, the German leader eventually decided to try and prevent the war – despite most of the German leadership preferring to keep the crisis going, letting Thailand fall and the USSR to invade, thus starting the European War as a Soviet aggression, something many thought was necessary for a west-fascist Great Alliance. The German ministry of foreign affairs was a battleground of its own, between those trying to get in contact with the Chinese and those who sought to prevent it. In the meantime, order in the Army was jeopardized as well, as while the order for “extremely high alert” was given, one for mobilization was not – despite formed plan only expecting “extremely high alert” to be called once mobilization was going on. German military heads would thus fight over what action to take and which not to take to prevent escalation – or prepare for the inevitable. Contact with Mao via a phoneline was formed through Portugal, Makau and the Chinese Ministry of Trade involved in business with the Portuguese – a mere 4 hours before deadline.

The conversation and negotiations between Hanke and Mao were over two hours long, problems being with translations. Hanke asked Mao to withdraw from the ultimatum offering to withdraw German forces from Thailand, in return wanting for the Chinese to withdraw from Laos. Confirmation of both these operations being overseen by the League of Nations, which was also to establish a “permanent boundary” between the two states. Mao rejected, on the grounds of China not being a member of the LoN, whereas Germany was – any commission formed by it having to pro-German. Offers of giving the Soviets more power in the commission, or having it formed from neutral powers like Switzerland or the USA were declined as well, Mao accepting only Chinese representatives. To this, Hanke answered with a suggestion of postponing the deadline for another 72 hours to allow for China to join the League of Nations officially and thus be able to send its delegations to Thailand. Mao gave him 48.

On the same day, Hanke would come out to give a speech to a hastily assembled press conference in Berlin, also allowing western correspondents to participate. In it, he gave out an official decree in which he recognized the People’s Republic of China as a state and pledged to support its entry to the LoN. He said he spoke to “Herr Mao” and the two agreed to a temporary compromise, involving also the immediate withdrawal of German bombers from Thailand. Formalities involving the Chinese entry to the LoN, coupled with its special sessions were to take place in the upcoming two days during which China was not to take hostile action against Thailand.

Thai_Hanke.jpg


Chancellor Hanke informing the public of his conversation with Chairman Mao.

Hanke’s decision was not discussed with the cabinet nor with anyone else, much to the infuriation of many, especially Thailand. It was also a sudden turn in international relation, the PRC getting recognition from Germany which now pushed hard for the LoN to vote for it to be accepted. On August the 30th on the special session of the LoN the PRC was officially accepted as a member state – being the second Chinese state there, as the Republic of China remained part of the organization. The world was returning to calmness, Mao making a triumphant entry to Geneva as a recognized leader, withdrawing his ultimatum and being “prepared to accept peace”.
From there, things suddenly went awkward. With German air forces having left Thailand, fascist and soviet forces in Europe standing down, the formation of the international oversight commissions on the implementation of the “peace plan” was plagued with obstruction coming from the Chinese themselves. When after over a month of preparation the LoN commission was eventually sent to Thailand and Laos, while the withdrawal of German planes was confirmed, the withdrawal of their land forces was not – Mao not ordering a withdrawal from Laos and more importantly, not asking for the Germans to do it either. Face with that, Berlin did not give the order, leading to the German infantry force there being slowly replaced with a contingent of 4000 marines. In the meantime, around 15 000 Chinese soldiers remained in Laos, nether of the two pushing for each others withdrawal anymore.

Thai_chinese_soldiers.jpg


Chinese soldiers would not withdraw from Laos, firmly establishing Chinese domination there.

Who ended up as the ultimate “victor” of the crisis was doubtful. Germany was allowed to stay in Thailand, though without a strategic deterrent against China. It was also forced to recognize China. And although Hanke would be seen by many in the west as ultimately a level-headed leader who averted war, it was also what made him look weak in the German establishment, crippling his position. Thailand came out with greater guarantees of protection, but also greater threats, now facing the Chinese army at its borders. Mao was the one to end up with the most – having been granted international recognition and global acceptance of the occupation of Laos, he lost nothing. Following the crisis, most countries in the world would come to recognize the PRC as a state, though often coming to a conflict with Taiwan, which was losing its legitimacy as the “only Chinese state”. For this reason, it was also though the entire crisis was engineered specifically for just that – brinksmanship forcing the world to talk to China as means of averting war, though “talking” was itself what was desired. In later years and decades, mostly thanks to gradual opening of Chinese and Soviet files on the background of the Thai missile crisis this theory would come to get more and more supporters, as it became apparent that the USSR wasn’t very seriously thinking about supporting China in any war, much of the secret KGB reports and analyses doubting Chinese warmongering being genuine – completely otherwise than what western intelligence thought.

Thai_German_marines.jpg


German marines would remain in Taiwan, many later coming to serve in Angola and Mozambique due to their experience in jungle warfare.

But aftershocks of the crisis would come more soon than anyone expected. When the dust cleared and much of the world had put the events past them, the LoN commission continued the work it was meant to do, involving the establishment of Thai boundaries. While Chinese occupations has weakened the amount of irregulars crossing into Thai territory, it did not prevent it. The eyes of the commission also went to a place otherwise not thought much about, that being the Preah Vihear Temple. A site of great cultural importance to both Cambodia and Thailand, its possession was disputed for years, having been nominally under the administration of French Indochina, but after French withdrawal being occupied by the Thai. Numerous skirmishes took place for control over the temple with varying results – the Thai forces being forced out in 1964 and later in 1969, each time returning and driving the Cambodians out. Attempts at settling the dispute ended in failure for years, with pleas to the Permanent Court of International Justice failed, as Thailand refused to participate, being supported in this by the fascist states. But with the LoN commission doing its work – much of it taking place in the safety of offices rather than the outdoors – of establishing the Thai border, it also took a look at the dispute with Cambodia – an update on its works being sent to the LoN as part of the “implementation of the peace plan” which awarded the temple to Cambodia (as established later, solely because of it being formerly part of French Indochina – the office clerk writing that specific piece of report never visiting the site, his superiors simple accepting and signing it, somehow nobody realising the implications, as no Thai members were on the commission). The LoN would routinely accept the update, thus creating ground for a new crisis to occur. Awkwardly, the only person to notice this development was not a governmental worker or journalist but a French student Pierre Aymond, who wrote his master thesis on settling international disputes and marked the recent development as a sign of “peaceful territorial conflict resolution” being feasible, as Thailand did not protest at the time.

Thai_preah_vihear.jpg


Preah Vihear temple on the Thai-Cambodian border.

Thus when yet another Cambodian attack in June 1974 occurred, pushing the Thai garrison out, the USSR and other communist states had come to support Cambodia, pointing out it was simply enforcing LoN decisions and peace process. Thailand was dumbfounded and protested immediately, claiming that the “peace process” did not involve the Thai-Cambodian dispute but only the Thai-Laotian border, that its works couldn’t be implemented partially but had to be accepted wholesale once all conditions and goals were met and that the decision of awarding the Preah Vihear Temple to Cambodia was flawed itself. But all the above were taken with a grain of salt by most of the public opinion – the “peace process” did not limit resolving Thai issues to Laos and Thailand itself has raised the issues of Cambodians obstructing it with provocations in the past; the works of the commission were implemented part where they were finished, parts of the Thai-Laotian border being delimited and demarked before a final acceptance; Thailand did not use the given time to amend or try to appeal from the commission’s decision in the three-months time it had according to procedure. With the ghosts of the Thai missile crisis re-awakening in the world, most of it had shown a rather pro-Cambodian attitude, trying to ensure another such crisis does not occur. Thailand was seen as the villain here, not accepting the decisions of the LoN which it did in the past when it suited it (though Cambodia was criticized as well for resorting to the use of force before any diplomatic actions).

Thailand ignored global pressures and acted unilaterally, dispatching a greater force to Preah Vihear to retake it; Cambodia did the same. In what was the largest military engagement in South-East Asia since the end of the Indochina War, about 20 000 soldiers fought on both sides of the battle, which destroyed much of the temple it was fought for in the first place. The two day battle ended on July the 3rd in Thai victory thanks to its superior firepower, but had marked it as pariah state in global public opinion. One of the reasons for such radical action was the death of the Thai Prime Minister in 1973, who was replaced by Field Marshall Thanom Kittikachorn – a strong supporter of the militarization of the state, staunch pro-German anti-Communist. Having to “prove himself” worthy of holding power, he could not allow to start his rule with a military defeat followed by a political one –and had to keep the temple at all costs.

Thai_Thanom_Kittikachorn_1960_02.jpg


Prime Minister Thanom Kittikachorn, one of the greater hard-liners in Thai politics.

Cambodia did not take this lying down. Feeling wind in sail, it pressed the issue, starting a larger terror campaign against the Thai on a broad front, its units going deep into Thai territory undercover with hidden weapons, posing as peasants or refugees, only to unleash attacks on civilian targets. Around 700 people were killed between the 3rd and 24th of July 1974 at the hands of the Red Khmers, most of them civilians, though military targets were hit as well.

Thai_victims.jpg


Victims of the Khmer offensive mourning those killed.

The brutality of the campaign (the Khmers practicing bodily mutilations against those slain) and the underhanded tactics provoke Thailand into taking more radical steps against Cambodia, for which it paid with even greater public outrage. Its declarations and reports on how the atrocities were committed by the Cambodians were not believed, Cambodia denying responsibility. The local LoN observers also did not confirm who carried out the attacks. Demands for Thailand to withdraw from Preah Vihear intensified.

Thai_geneva.jpg


LoN general assembly discussing the Thai-Cambodian conflict.

In this situation, Bangkok once again reached towards Berlin for support. While Germany did officially support Thailand, it was much more reluctant to involve itself in the crisis again. Hanke knew his hand was weak in the South-East Asian game and preferred for Thailand to back out, seeing no way for German prestige not to be hurt there. He himself knew that his position in the Reich was growing weaker and did not want it to be jeopardized by another conflict on the other side of the world. But that was the opposite to what most of the Nazi leadership wanted, which thought of the last crisis as their failure, this one being a chance to redeem itself and show strength; by supporting Thailand in keeping the temple by force and acting to its benefit in the League, it could potentially repair some of the damage to its prestige suffered two years earlier.

Thus when the Thai prime minister Kittikachorn would ask the German chancellor if Thailand had his support in taking action against Cambodia, Hanke confirmed it, not suspecting that the Thai leader had a much greater agenda in mind than simply keeping what he currently had. Expecting that anti-Thai pressures would increase, to a point where German support might not be sufficient, he sought to take “preventive steps” – and like his predecessor aimed at making a bad situation even worse. With the row over the Preah Vihear slightly weakening in the next month, Thailand prepared for ending its dispute with Cambodia once and for all by force.

Thai_military.jpg


Thailand gets ready for a military resolution of the conflict.

Military preparations for the invasion of Cambodia had been taking place for two months after the battle of Preah Vihear. Initially being only worrisome but somewhat understandable due to the border skirmishes with Cambodia and the atrocities in the south east of the country, they became downright threatening when the Cambodian offensive had stopped, but Thai military build-up did not. Kittikachorn continuously spoke of these actions as “organizational changes” made necessary by Cambodian hostilities. It neither denied nor confirmed its intentions of taking action in Cambodian territory, consistently calling Cambodia the aggressive party both due to its attack on Preah Vihear as well as its three week terror campaign. While intelligence reports did speak that those “changes” made no military sense as defensive actions, they had everything in common with preparing for war. Few believed Thailand being ready for that or wanting to risk it with Chinese forces on its borders and it being a pariah state.

But the new Thai leadership followed a slightly different mentality, as well as worked under different presumptions. Not understanding the importance of public opinion of western states in the decision making process there, it thought those countries would act according to their interests rather than emotions. Unlike the rest of the world which chose to disbelieve it, Thailand knew of the atrocities of the Red Khmers in Cambodia, and how they were everything the west opposed – when revealed, the west would have no option but to stop harassing Thailand for opposing a regime much worse than it. It also had come to the conclusion that China did not really seek to invade Thailand, but to strengthen its position in the Indochinese states, Thailand being only a tool for that. And like that tool it could allow itself to be used to further both their and the Chinese cause – action against Cambodia bringing Laos and Vietnam closer to China, while securing Thailand’s south eastern border. A huge gamble, one based on the assumption of Chinese non-action coming from China’s conduct in the Thai missile crisis and Mao’s declining health. That Cambodia was also rather politically isolated, having been involved in conflict with both Vietnam and China for the past years, Thailand saw it as also being somewhat isolated despite official support for it coming from the communist world.
The invasion of Cambodia began on August the 2nd and was a tactical surprise for the Cambodian defenders – having participated in guerrilla wars and raids, they weren’t terribly efficient in conventional warfare. Purges against intellectuals organized by the Red Khmers took a toll on the military as well, which was simply unprepared and too disorganized for a regular, prolonged war. Outgunned and outmanned, Cambodian forces fell fast to Thai attackers, the entire country being occupied in just two weeks, the regime of the Red Khmers collapsing, their leaders escaping.

Thai_Phanom_Phen.jpg


Thai soldiers entering Phnom Penh.

Much like before, the Thai invasion caused political havoc – for the first time, it was a communist country being attacked by a non-communist power. Thailand had called this “self-defence” from the very first day, pointing towards Cambodia as the perpetrator – though the time gap between the Cambodian “offensive” and Thai “counter-offensive” had made it a rather weak argument. But much like Thailand had predicted, its actions did not cause a global meltdown – rather, the situation developed much as it had predicted. Initial outrage at the Thai invasion turned into shock as the atrocities of the Red Khmers in Cambodia had revealed. Thailand had prepared for various organizations to be ready to participate in the “relief effort” – food and medicine being stored to be given out to the Cambodians by those such as the Red Cross. The Thai invasion was the most well-reported offensive in the world, journalists and war-correspondents having been invited earlier and participating in the “liberation” – more to the point, they reported the total lack of Thai brutality who were often seen as “liberators”, along with the Cambodians terrible living situation and the inhumanity of Cambodian Communism. Mass graves of its victims were uncovered and confirmed to be years old, thus making the Khmers responsible for the death of millions. Cambodia, just a few weeks earlier seen as a victim of fascist imperialism, was now being seen as the very example of just how terrible communism was – and Thailand, the “bad fascist bully” was now hailed as the hero of South East Asia, having been unfairly bashed previously.

Thai_khmers.jpg


Skulls from one of the many hundred mass graves uncovered in Cambodia.

Both China and the USSR condemned the Thai offensive, though neither took too great steps before it – Russia limiting itself to raising its alert level, China doing the same, along with its forces in Laos. This was one of the greatest surprises of the war, as it was almost universally believed such an act would cause immediate Chinese reaction – after all, the country was ready for war with Thailand over much less two years ago, and did fight an actual conflict with India around not much later than that. Ignoring such an aggression was unthinkable. Yet that was what seemed to happed. It demanded Thailand seize the invasion, but did not threaten counter-action. Rather, it expanded its occupation of Laos by having its forces move southwards towards the Laotian-Cambodian border, thus eliminating the remaining power of the Laotian government, replacing it with a puppet one; in the same process it encircled Vietnam, which was now too in a desperate situation. Thailand understood better than the rest of the world that Mao was not looking towards a great war, or a war at all; what he sought was China being granted the status of a great power, the best way to do that being in creating a sphere of influence in Indochina. Kittikachorn would later be called “the only person in the world to figure out Mao” - though whether his actions were dictated by his greater understanding of the Chinese enigma, or pure luck and insanity would still be debated. In later years, much would suggest that the decision of war with Cambodia came as a result of the intelligence gathered from both Cambodia and China on how the two distanced themselves from each other - China trying to establish a protectorate over it, and according to some reports – giving Thailand “silent permission” for an attack to force it and the rest of Indochina to accept its “protection”. The Thai prime minster did not have intentions of annexing Cambodia – in his diaries and during talks with his cabinet he would speak openly how even terminating communism in Cambodia wasn’t the goal. Knowing those actions would push the Indochinese countries more into China’s orbit, he sought for that to happen – and negotiate a settlement with China from the position of strength, accepting even the loss of Cambodia. How exactly giving China all of Indochina was supposed to extend Thai security was still a mystery – Kittikachorn most likely believing a Chinese occupation could not last forever, as it would find itself in the same trouble the French did not long ago.
But China couldn’t really not do anything in the face of fascist tanks entering communist territory. Demanding the LoN introduce sanctions against Thailand and warrant military action against Thailand should it not withdraw, the country answered by pointing out “humanitarian invasions” had been accepted as a “justified casus belli” – the USSR doing that very thing when it invaded Japan (American intervention in Cuba and numerous western-backed actions against perceived “greater enemies” being other examples). Thailand agreed to comply with all LoN demands from the very start of the war – the problem being that the very regime it toppled was exactly the type of thing the LoN was often thought of as being meant to prevent from existence. Thus Thailand was carrying out the “goals” of the LoN while acting contrary to what were its “means”. The USSR and China found themselves in a somewhat difficult spot with the crimes of the Cambodian regime being exposed, being their supporters on the international stage – now hiding behind the curtain of those atrocities being a “fascist lie” or how the Cambodian should be free to decide their own government without any foreign interventions. The last part was what Thailand agreed with as well, as it did offer to withdraw immediately after the LoN would make a resolution about it – one that wasn’t coming, vetoed by Germany, the UK and France abstaining (the USA being fully for immediate, unconditional withdrawal). Thailand also demanded that Vietnam hand over the leaders of the Red Khmers regime to stand trial, whether before Thai or international courts, again putting the communist powers in a difficult situation of whether to hand over their criminals. That would never happen, Pol Pot being allowed to live in the shelter of Vietnam and China for the rest of his life, along with his many palatines.

Thai_pol_pot.jpg

Pol Pot in China, living under protection.

The settlement of the Thai-Cambodian War would come from not the LoN, but an international summit, one once again forced by China. Having occupied Laos, Vietnam was its next target, but one not falling to it – Vietnam refusing the entry of Chinese troops for “protection”. The pace of the Thai advance was too great for Chinese diplomacy to handle, as the war was over before long-term negotiations tactics could bear fruit in relations with Hanoi. Thus while China would still partly encircle Vietnam, it would not enter it. Not losing momentum though, it would thus turn its attention back to Thailand, increasing pressure on it, eventually coming to threaten war. Sending an unofficial information about a planned second ultimatum, Bejing expected an answer before that could happen and wasn’t wrong – the offer of a summit to take place in Delhi coming soon, to take place between China, Thailand, the USSR, the UK, Germany, France, the USA and the LoN representative to “act on the behalf of Cambodia”.

Thai_Delhi_Summit.jpg


Preparation of the Delhi Summit, the first major global summit involving Communist China.

The Delhi Summit wasn’t much more than a peace conference, Thailand being forced to withdraw from Cambodia, German backing only allowing it to keep the Preah Vihear temple on its side of the border. Combined USA , USSR and Chinese pressures on immediate withdrawal overpowered the British (and in part, German) suggestions of a “gradual withdrawal”, meant to allow for elections to take place. While China and the USSR would accept the notion of having Pol Pot and the Red Khmers to stand trial for their crimes, they refused to pursue them on the grounds of them not hiding on their soil, and the Thai leadership standing trial with them. Cambodia would thus be abandoned to its own fate, the Thai withdrawal in August and September being followed by “free elections” bringing the pro-Chinese factions to power. The Delhi Summit would thus greatly increase the influence of China in Indochina – but also technically give Thailand what it sought. An official peace treaty between Thailand and Cambodia would be signed in 1975, officially confirming the Preah Vihear as part of Thailand and bringing noticeable end to border conflicts – both Laos and Cambodia disarming their guerrillas and adopting a more organized military structure based on the Soviet-Chinese model.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
The lowering of tensions in Europe had greatly contributed to the peaceful and calm development of the Scandinavian Union in the 60’s and early 70’s. The pillars of the “Scandinavian Integration” movement and policies were raised during the height of the cold war, in the days when all of the global great powers have had serious concerns about northern Europe and their interests there. This had led to the process of “integration” being based on both “traditional methods” in the form of political, international organizations involved in political, economic and military matters on one hand, and the “new diplomacy” approach on the other, through the establishment of numerous institutions meant for culture, education, exchange of ideas. The idea was being “sold” to the general population of the Scandinavian states and found certain support which would come to grow in time. The establishment of the Nordic Council, the Scandinavian Economic Community and the Nordic Defence Organization has helped enormously in strengthening of the ties between the Nordic states, while political reforms and economic prosperity had bought popularity to “the second wave of Scandinavism”, as it was held responsible for those.

scand_flags_zps770b1542.png


The five flags of the Nordic states, flown together

The ideas of western liberalism, eastern socialism and central European nationalism had all mixed in northern Europe, all of them being in some way changed and incorporated into them rather than struggling against each other on the political scene or in the streets. The Scandinavian countries had come to almost completely terminate all anti-democratic forces, to the point where even the Berlin-backed fascists and Moscow-backed Communists had abandoned the official policies of “abolishing the system through a revolution” and accepted the necessity of rule having to come from democratic acceptance. Scandinavia had in some ways even surpassed the west in “democratization” and “liberalisation” by introducing reforms those countries would only do much later. Freedom of travel and settlement between them, universal suffrage, full freedom of organization of political parties and organizations (even anti-democratic ones) and many others were not only declarations, but fully respected laws. “Community activity”, “Civil Society”, “Social Solidarity” were things which “levels” would be thought of as extremely high compared to the rest of the world by political and social scientists – in fact, it would very often be the people from Scandinavia themselves who would come to develop those ideas and coin those terms, or popularize them.

Democratic liberalism was not impaired by socialist ideas, which the Scandinavian political machines would quickly come to process into something more civil than “class struggle”, translating it mostly into worker’s rights, occupational hazards and safety procedures, raising of wages for labourers, providing aid for the “self-improvement” of the lower and middle classes, offering educational, financial and social assistance to those requiring aid. “Social Democracy” would be the most powerful political force in the Scandinavian states, dominating their political scenes for decades, the occasional political victories of other parties being commonly thought of as aberrations. Awkwardly however, none of them would however implement a “Labour Code” (what had been a common trend in both western and central Europe), matters involving “workers’ rights” such as time-offs, leaves, retirement funds, long-time employment benefits, working hours, minimum wage, etc. being regulated on the basis of individual acts. Intra-parliamentary groups and committees would be very common in Scandinavian parliaments, to ensure the solidarity of the states and a minimizing the negative effects for workers of regulatory competition and the harmonization of business and labour laws. Scandinavia would be known for very strict technical standards of mass-produced goods by big businesses and OHS requirements. But the possibility of fighting for ones interests outside democratic procedures and due process were hardly tolerated. While strikes and protests were legal, occupational ones were not and they were required to be counted as “days on leave”. Businesses owners were quite free in letting people off, Scandinavian employment guarantees being not as powerful as for example those in central and eastern Europe (which went as far as a compulsion of labour), though the general prosperity and economic development Scandinavia enjoyed had made unemployment constantly low.

scand_midsommar_zps4f51d548.jpg


“Community spirit” was often displayed during holiday celebrations.

The ethnic nationalism praised by the fascist powers had also heavily influenced the Scandinavian movement, though in a different way than was the case in central Europe. Many of the states there, such as Italy and Poland, have had their own problems with “insufficient national consciousness” –their people often holding a particularly strong “Haimat” sentiment, their “Vaterland” sentiment being weaker. Germany too has had the same issue, with it advocating strengthening the “All-German” identity. In each of those cases however, a “destined” nationality already existed, the goal of nationalist ideology being “moulding” the rest into it; in the case of Scandinavia, a “scandinavian” identity did not exist and the existing Swedish, Finnish, Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic national identities were firmly established. However, it was obvious to the many advocates of Scandinavian integration than the process could not go on, (or go through crises) without such a “Scandinavian identity”. It thus had to be created. Knowing well that such a project would create opposition, as any attempts at “replacing” one national consciousness with another would be leading to conflict (and all of the Scandinavian states except for Sweden having a memory, sometimes even fresh as was the case of Finland and Iceland of living under foreign rule), the desired approach was to create a “Haimat” sentiment for the Scandinavian people without affecting their own national ways. Common features where of their cultures where thus highlighted, such as protestant religions and traditions, or common military history (Swedish and Danish history trying to “reform” the history of their empires into benign entities, often called “Sweden-Finland” or “Denmark-Norway” so as to create the assumption of an equal status of those within them). Many celebrations and holidays were also held at the same days, commemorating common events. The very similar legislation, an increase in the population movements between the Nordic states, appearance of “Pan-Scandinavian” newspapers, radio stations and TV channels (most of them government owned though) reporting on the affairs in the “neighbourly states” – all had contributed to the establishment of a greater sense of “Nordic solidarity”, mostly translating into popular support for ”common foreign policy” moves, “joint economic endeavours” (even at the potential costs for ones nation-state) and other such. While the establishment of a true ”Scandinavian nationality” was still a dream for many of the “Pan-Scandinavianists”, progress towards that direction was made, even though it would only be in decades than the first people would consider “Scandinavian” to be their “second nationality”.

scand_nationality_zpsf5c3530a.jpg


Some guidebooks on Scandinavia would, with time, start referring to the “Scandinavians” as a single people, the Swedes, Danes, Norwegians being “merely” regional variations.

One common gossip from those was even the restoration of a personal union between the monarchies of Sweden and Denmark with a suggested royal marriage of Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden and Margrethe of Denmark, the eldest daughter of King Frederick IX. The idea of amending the Danish constitution so as to allow the Swedish King to assume the throne through marriage of the eldest daughter was realistically suggested, though opposed by many Danes who either preferred the throne to go to Frederick’s brother Knud, or to introduce changes that would allow a women to become the Head of State as Queen (a King being only a consort). The latter found actual support, another idea being the movement of the royal courts of Sweden and Denmark to a common location, the two becoming a marriage with both being the Heads of their respective states. The idea would ultimately fail though, with constitutional reforms allowing Margaret to assume the throne herself, and rumours of marriage with Carl Gustaf ending with her marrying Stephen von Preussen (the great-grandchild of the German Emperor Wilhelm II) in 1967.

Scand_CarlGustafMargareth_zpsf2dd66b3.jpg


Photo of Carl XVI Gustaf and Margrethe II

The economic theories of fascism have too affected the process of Scandinavian integration, remarkably, in a positive way. The concept of a “free people” having to have “free access” to the resources it needed to grow and develop was given some thought by the economist of the Scandinavian states, and many actually coming to the conclusion that political and economic integration was just the way to achieve that end. Individually those states did not have all the “strategic resources” of the modern world, but collectively – they did. Swedish iron ore, Norwegian oil and gas, Finnish lumber and ore – together formed a resource base that covered most of the essentials for the development of modern industries, while also being much sought outside, and thus possible to export. While all of the Scandinavian states have had concerns about sharing their natural wealth through an economic union, those were managed to be overcome. Scandinavia did join –under much pressure from central Europe – the unofficial boycott of Soviet goods, (as Moscow had lobbied heavily to build oil and gas pipelines to Scandinavia, as well as to provide other resources), ironically aided by Norway in this, which saw the USSR as a potentially dangerous competitor in the petroleum industry. Scandinavian solidarity was very present here, as the population of the countries actually were willing to accept slightly higher prices of natural goods for the sake of them coming from the Scandinavian Union, rather than importing cheaper goods from the USSR, Germany or Britain. The higher prices of final goods was compensated with exceptional quality of Scandinavian goods, known for being durable – another “fascist economics” feature Scandinavia employed through strict technical regulations and norms.

scand_electrolux_zpscbe2d0db.jpg


The Electrolux vacuum cleaner was an export hit of Sweden, the term “Electrolux” coming to mean “vacuum cleaner” in some languages.

The success of Scandinavian integration was remarkable, especially when compared to the development of the other such movements in the world. Despite being at more less the same level of development and economic wealth as Germany in the 50’s when the process truly began, the standard of living in Scandinavia increased greatly, surpassing even the traditionally “richest” states of western Europe (not being burdened with military expenditures, and them integrating with similar cultures, rather than more alien ones, often on the other side of the world as was the case of France or Britain having a lot to do with it). With the first generation of Swedes, Danes, Fins, Norwegians and Icelanders having witnessed the benefits, it only seemed natural than upon growing to the position of power they would seek for the process to be increased. Talks about merging the Nordic Council, the Scandinavian Economic Community and other Scandinavian organizations into a single political body were thus common. The eventual product of these talks would be the Kalmar Treaty signed in 1974, also known as the “Merger Treaty” – because it main goal was “merging” the Scandinavian Economic Community, the Nordic Council, the Nordic Defence Organization and other political bodies into a single institutional structure, joined and dependent on each other. Other than that it also provided it (them) with a greater degree of democratisation by introducing judiciary bodies for both the states and the people to plead to in case of breaches of the law, as well as giving them “parliament appointed” bodies to act as “quasi-legislative” branches of their work- though those were mostly limited to a veto power which was mostly dead due to those appointed by the parliaments coming from the same political power as those in charge. The Nordic Council had thus become a “Supreme Collective Head” of this new organizational structure quickly dubbed the “Scandinavian Union” (though no such thing technically existed, as the new organization merely reformed existing institutions and brought them closer together without creating a new one), made up from the prime ministers of the member states. The SEC had expanded its area of control and regulation over much of the Scandinavian economies. The NDO was moved from being an independent international organization to being placed under the authority of the Nordic Council (its Secretary being appointed and dismissed by it). Many other organizations would one way or other come to join the “Scandinavian Union”, which was also made to finance them (rather than funds coming from member states individually). The seat of the Nordic Council (which due to its nature mostly worked through appointed secretaries, the prime ministers only gathering at summit, held at least twice a year) was set in the city of Kalmar, which had also been made the seat of many other SU organizations (with the noticeable exception of the NDO, which remained in Oslo). Attempts at creating a “common Scandinavian Army” all failed though, in part due to internal opposition of many politicians and conservative parts of the society, but also the pressures of the global great powers, who, while being accepting to economic and political cooperation of Scandinavia during the détente, were not as willing to see a united military power to arise in the north.

scand_norddf_zpsec1e49af.png


Summit of the Nordic Defence Organization in Oslo, chiefs of staff and general secretary on photo.

Kalmar had thus become the unofficial “Capital of Scandinavia”, the relatively small town with barely 32 000 people in 1970 becoming the centre of power for an bloc that stood among the top ten economic powers of the world. The influx of well-paid bureaucrats was by itself reason enough for the town to change which it did –in just a few years, the town population grew by a few thousand and kept on doing so. Political power also brought financial capital, as Scandinavian companies would move their seats (or the seats of their daughter companies/think-tanks) there, bringing an economic and construction boom. It would come to exceed the capitals of the Scandinavian states in terms of property values, and in some ways, even political importance – international institutes such as the International Scandinavian Organization for Human, Racial and Minorities Rights being moved there, the small town becoming the host for many international forums as a “neutral ground”, more “detached” from the big politics which took place in Geneva – even being favoured by many diplomats for its “small-town” character.

scand_kalmar_zps785e1375.png


Headquarters of the “Scandinavian Union” in Kalmar.

Scandinavia would begin to be dubbed the “Switzerland of the north”, not just because of its neutrality, but because of its developed banking and arms industry as well. Scandinavians had traditionally been using a system of smaller banks and “savings – loans unions” which had a rather local character, dealing with smaller sums and savings. Economic growth and increase in wealth, as well as greater movements both within the countries as well as between the Scandinavian states created the necessity for the system to grow, so as to keep up with the demand for more advanced banking services. Among the greatest developments of Scandinavian Banking was the mass-introduction of credit cards to its clients by the Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken, which had come to quickly become a very popular tool for transactions. Sweden would become one of the vanguards of cashless payments in Europe and strong advocates of a common currency for Scandinavia – the “Scandinavian Crown”. The extremely ambitious plan met with both appeal and opposition and would remain a hot topic for a long time – the only progress in its implementation only coming in 1985 with the creation of the “Transfer Crown” - introduced only in non-physical form as a means of conducting financial transfers between banks, corporations and the states themselves, it’s worth being equivalent to a “basket” of national currencies of Scandinavia.

scand_card_zps4e7a70de.jpg


Scandinavia would be in the forefront of electronic banking.

Much success of the Scandinavian “Social Democratic model” was attributed to its fiscal and tax policy, which was respected by the highly disciplined society. Denmark was the first country in the world to introduce the VAT tax, quickly followed by other Nordic states; all of them also introduced a strongly progressive tax rate system, the upper rates of income tax going as far as 80% (corporate taxes being lower though). The idea of “progressive taxation” extended even into criminal law, fines and penalties in Scandinavia being dependent on the income of culprits; it was not unusual for large business owners to be fined many thousands of crowns for simple speeding. Scandinavia also introduced a strict state monopoly on many “harmful” industries, such as alcohol and tobacco, while also effectively pursuing smuggle and illegal breweries/distilleries. Alcoholism, which had been a plague in the “cold north” was combated by a long social campaign aided by both the states and churches, who often resorted to comparing their countries to others to shame people, as well as discipline it. The Common Tax Code was among the more heated issues in Scandinavia, only managing to be instituted in 1980, though its actual usefulness was often put to doubt – the CTC merely created a system of identical tax rates and cuts for the Scandinavian states, but did leave the area of tax returns in the hands of the member states, all of which would introduce some kind of beneficial treatment for some types of businesses, still leaving themselves a degree of “legal advantage”. The CTC would also be criticized by many business owners and politicians for its over complexity – with the Scandinavian Union becoming more entangled in trade with the west, where linear taxes, cuts and such were more common, many chose to evade the CTC by moving their companies there, affecting the Scandinavian economies.

But banking and natural resources would only be auxiliary to the true source of Scandinavian wealth – a highly developed and diversified export industry. Being still in a large part agrarian states in the 30’s and 40’s, Swedish, Norwegian and most importantly Finnish industrialization took the path of creating modern goods the “established” economies of western Europe, Germany and Italy were not producing – while also not being burdened by the restrictions and mismanagement the fascist states of central Europe had, nor the burdens of war and internal conflicts that the post-colonial world often suffered from. Revenue generated from the sales of Norwegian oil and gas, as well as Swedish iron ore was what allowed for the establishment of modern industries, which then took over as the main source of income – money being well spent and not mismanaged. This would become known as the “Nordiska undret” or “Nordic Miracle” , characterized by fast growth of industrial production in the 50’s and 60’s (primarily in Sweden and Norway) followed by an economic boom in electronics/”new technologies” in the 70’s and 80’s in Finland and Iceland (Denmark experiencing a little of both) and constantly low inflation. While Sweden would be the country to most develop both the light and heavy industry – brands such as Volvo, SAAB, Bofors, being internationally recognized – Finland would be the one to make the greatest progress overall. This was mostly thanks to its incredibly efficient education system, Finland not saving funds on providing decent education for the population, including well-equipped schools for the underage (many of those coming from rural or otherwise rather poor families, for whom school time would become an actual attraction) and scholarship programs. The greatest of its achievements was NOKIA, the Finnish ACME producer – A Company that Makes Everything - paper products, tires, footwear, clothes, communications cables telephones, TV, VHS, cameras, kitchen appliance – and more, company having its part in most of the major businesses of Finland, to the point of it being becoming called “Suomi Inc”. Specializing in telecommunication appliances and services, it would come to completely dominate that market, buying out or gaining control packages of many competing giants such as TDC, Ericsson, Electrolux and Telenor. The changes of NOKIA’s CEO, or in fact, any of its board members were large media events, extensively reported and its effects pondered in public debate. It would come to a point where some of NOKIA’s upper executives would hold their own “public campaigns” trying to get a spot at the board, as about 80% of the population of Finland had at least some shares of NOKIA – the company becoming a joint-stock one in 1980. The extent of its power and influence (the CEO of NOKIA holding meetings with the Prime Minister and President on equal footing) was what would be an inspiration for the concept of a “Megacorp” – popular in the genre of cyberpunk, which NOKIA’s policy of cheap electronics and telephone connections made popular.

scand_nokia_zps4751e624.png


HQ of Nokia in Helsinki.

Another important element of Finnish politics was the construction of the Tallinn – Helsinki Tunnel under the Gulf of Finland. The general acceptance for such a construction had been in place already since 1957, agreed upon by the USSR as well, provided construction works and future use would not impair its ability to use the gulf. This involved the seabed elements of the construction not to be fitted with surveillance equipment – most of the Baltic sea floor having been covered with an array of sensors by the Berlin Pact, meant to hamper the effectiveness of Soviet submarines. The gulf of Finland remained outside the German “GBS” system (Gerauschuberwachungssystem), the USSR also objecting towards such tunnel being constructed using artificial islands. Soviet objections towards the implementation of any construction were heeded by Finland, preventing any work to escape conceptual stage –those however grew in numers, as the “engineering race” had led to great developments in engineering and construction technologies, specifically meant for “Super-Structures”. The possibility for a full tunnel capable of not only carrying freight trains, but also passenger trains, and eventually for a full automobile tunnel to be constructed was what delayed any final decisions, along with the expected massive costs for such an undertaking – much more than Estonia itself could afford.

scand_tunnel_zps737a71c7.jpg


Plans for the Helsinki – Tallinn tunnel.

But such a tunnel was not a “vanity dream” of Estonia only – many of the German leadership were enthusiastic about the idea as well. So did others in the Baltic States, who saw it as a great extension of the “Ostsee Bahnstrecke” which connected the capitals of Tallin and Riga with Konigsberg since 1961. With the Prussian Tunnel being complete (as well as modernization of Polish rail lines in Pomeralia), it was enough for direct trains from any of those cities directly to Berlin, and further into Germany. As Denmark was also another state pondering the option of a rail/car bridge being constructed over its straits to Sweden, the vision of a huge, all-Baltic rail/autobahn was coming close to reality – connecting the capitals of all of the Baltic States including Stockholm (as it was imagined such a connection would go across the Aland Islands, from Finland to Sweden). This was meant to better tie the countries of northern and central Europe, who until then had to trade via sea – making competition with the British difficult. It would also cut out the USSR from Europe more completely, as it was purposely intended for the “Ostsee Grossbahnstrecke” to avoid Leningrad. It was also thought as a way to further increase the dependency of the Baltic States on Germany, as being unable to raise te funds for such a project themselves, they would have to ask for loans – which Germany would be willing to grant, driving them into even greater debt, increasing its control over them.

scand_map_zps595b608f.png


Suggested route of the “Ostsee Bahnstrecke” (via Baltica).

Final consent for the Helsinki-Tallinn tunnel was only reached in 1973, the endeavour being carried out by two joint-venture companies – one of Swedish-Finnish, the other German-Baltic States origin. Italy and Poland, despite showing interest in participating (hoping it an investment from which they could profit in the future, the joint-ventures being also meant to manage the tunnel in the future and gather tolls for its use) were not allowed take part. Neither was the USSR, which after having its plea to the World Court dismissed, sought to protect its interests by joining in. Initial drilling began already in 1974, the final opening of the tunnel occurring in 1981. A technological marvel of its time, opening up new possibilities and attracting engineers from across the world, it would also end up being a complete economic catastrophe – much like most independent predictions thought it would. The huge maintenance costs of the triple tunnel (two rail and one automobile, with an extra emergency one) had made it a deficit investment from the start, as many more people opted for using traditional ferries rather than paying the enormous tolls required for passing through.
While Norwegian oil and gas had been what in a large part allowed for the great Scandinavian boom and integration to become possible, giving the Nordic countries almost complete energy independence, they were also wary about becoming too dependent on them. Natural gas was slowly substituting coal as the main energy resource of Sweden and Denmark, which was bought mostly from Germany and Poland, but the knowledge of fossil fuels being limited over time had led to policies meant for establishing more non-fuel consuming energy infrastructure. Ideas of “economic independence” (or “sustainable growth” as it was more commonly called in northern and western Europe) played a role here, and numerous scientific works were made pointing out that Scandinavia was naturally better suited for making use of certain sources of energy than other parts of the world. This included geothermal energy in Iceland, wind power in Denmark and wave power in Norway. With global demand on energy rising, so did the prices of fuels. Replacing fossil-fuels with “clean energy”, oil and gas being meant for export, was made hypothetically possible with the advancement of technologies. Denmark was the first country to try and cut its dependency on German coal and Norwegian gas by beginning a large wind-power program in 1978, windmills being constructed along the coast. This new infrastructure was meant first of all to cover the expected growth in energy demand in the coming decade, secondly, to replace the aging coal power plants Denmark still operated by sought to shut down in coming years. Iceland brought forth similar designs, though its depended on large geothermal power plants. Norway would be the last to join the trend, its attempt being at harnessing the wave power energy formed in its fiords, being a trailblazer in this technology.

scand_windmil_zpsd0d1afc7.jpg


Windmills on the shores of Denmark.

The effects were however below expectations – in the long term, the new technologies barely managed to cover the increased demand on energy and did so at a very high cost (calculations showing that the same funds if used for conventional energy would allow for the Scandinavian power grid to produce over 60% energy than it consumed). The only notable success was the Finnish nuclear power plant constructed in 1990 in Turku, Finland having also established its heating infrastructure to be powered by electricity rather than natural gas. The construction of the Turku power plant brought a lot of controversies, as scepticism regarding the safety of such facilities was rampant. Investments into nuclear power would remain a hot topic on the political scenes of the Nordic states, as while there was little doubt that maintaining wealth and prosperity was dependent on energy production and independence, whether getting it from fossils or renewables was better was disputable. Scandinavia was among the first places where the matter also brought organized “environmentalists” to the political scene in the form of the “Miljopartiet” – who debated the issue from an ecological perspective and the effects industrialization and fossil fuels had on the fauna and flora rather than the economy.

scand_grona_zps31e2b882.jpg


March of the “greens” in protest against nuclear power.

The recognized neutrality of Scandinavian states did not imply them being disarmed or militarily weak by any means; in fact, the “Switzerland of the north” would gain that title in part due to its well-armed and disciplined army. It would eagerly use old Viking symbology and the romantism of that era to give its armed forces an aura of greatness, making them attractive. Draft would not be abolished (despite foreign demands), as being neutral had made it mostly impossible for them to depend on any other allies for protection, thus requiring maximizing manpower with military training – this also included women, who could however exempt themselves from duty through a variety of ways, and even when drafted were committed to non-combat duty and training. Scandinavian soldiers were stereotyped as being fierce “warriors of the north”, partly due to many of its boot camps being purposely built in the far north. And even though the total number of the standing armies of Scandinavia weren’t particularly impressive compared to the European great powers, they nevertheless posed a certain threat. This came to be apparent only in the late 70’s though, when the updating of military plans of the great powers have had them readjust the military potential of the Scandinavian states – and recognize that rather than being possible to conquer in a matter of weeks (as was the common thought previously) in case of war, a conflict with Scandinavia would most likely require a prolonged campaign in difficult terrain like the Scandinavian mountains and a climate harsher than most soldiers were used to.

scand_wint_zpsbebce862.jpg


Swedish soldiers during winter training.

The Scandinavian armies used to import a great deal of their military equipment from abroad, mostly Britain and Germany – but the industrialization of the 50’s and 60’s had also enlarged the defense industries of their countries. Neutrality had also had the side effect of political pressures being exercised for stopping imports and modernizing the armies to use solely domestic produced equipment – a policy supported by many industrial tycoons. Sweden had been the country most for of it, as it already had an established military sector – the Bofors company being a recognized producers of artillery guns. As economic growth also meant increased expenditures on the military, Bofors would expand its inventory and quickly substitute Germany as the main provider of rifles and cannons of all types for northern Europe – pistols, machine guns, rifles, regular artillery, AA guns, tank cannons, even naval guns, eventually transforming into the “Bofors FN” company – one of the single largest weapons producers in Europe, following the buyout of the Belgian FN Herstal. The average grunt of the Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Finish and Icelandic armies would be equipped with the Ak 4 rifle (later replaced with the Ak 5) of Swedish production, which was known and praised for its ability to withstand harsh environment, mistreatment by the user and cold climate. Both the navies and the air forces of the Scandinavian armies would be using equipment not worse than those used by the formations of the great powers (though obviously in lower numbers), and even experimenting with completely new designs and technologies – such as the Gotland-class submarines, the first submarines to use external-combustion engines for propulsion, or the SAAB-42 fighters, the first military aircraft in duty which was capable of vertical take-off and landing using the same engine.

scand_gotland5_zps688f49f4.jpg


HMS Uppland in Swedish service

The Swedish Navy was a considerable power in the Baltic, second only to Germany (as the Baltic fleet was a rather low priority for the USSR) and considerable effort was undertaken to also keep the Arctic Ocean as an area of Scandinavian interest. Norway cooperated effectively with the other Scandinavian states, allowing them in using its sea ports and naval bases, extending Scandinavian influence North – in which it also has had the support of Germany and Italy. The fascist powers have been strong supporters of greater national control and privileges over sea waters, and sought to use this, in combination with Norwegian neutrality, to cut the Soviets off the Atlantic sea by offering to support their rights in the north Sea, north Atlantic and Arctic in return for a more “unfriendly neutrality” approach towards the USSR, such as blocking the Red Navy ships in those waters and reporting their positions when spotted or controlling Soviet merchant ships for contraband more often. This diplomatic battle was a somewhat tough one for Norway which had great reservations about making any moves that might be interpreted as a breach of its neutrality – thus often appealing to courts and international arbitration to ensure the legality of its actions. These battles over waters were waged not only in the rooms of offices though, as the conflict over control over seas, fishing rights and deep water resources brought Norway and Iceland in numerous conflicts with the UK. One of the more “inglorious” ones was the so called “Cod War” when British and Icelandic fishing ships would engage in sabotage of each other’s nets and vessels, leading eventually to the Royal Navy having to interfere to protect its fishing areas and keep Icelandic fishers away.

scand_Scylla-Odinn_zps3f38e6d9.jpg


Icelandic patrol ship ICGV Odinn and British frigate HMS Scylla clash in the North Atlantic

Scandinavia was universally considered to be one of the “paradises on earth” and the greatest place to live – an idylla in Europe, which lived under the constant threat of a possible Second Great War. There, this paranoia was invisible, and those moving there feeling like global or even European problems completely didn’t involve those countries, as if they lived on the other side of the world. The social-democratic model of Scandinavia was considered to be the greatest implementation of the ideas of “socialism” by most left-wing parties in democratic states across the entire world, desired to be copied and presented as a goal to be achieved. The countries of Scandinavia universally got the highest scores in all rankings of ”human development”, “people’s happiness”, “social solidarity” etc. – but also scored extremely well in much more “tangible” things, such as being among the countries with the highest GDP per capita in the world, lowest unemployment and corruption, best healthcare and education, most safe ones. This haven was attractive not only to the democratic societies, but to the more and more impoverished people of central Europe, especially Germany, the only country with an open land border with Scandinavia (the Finnish – Soviet border being closed for decades). The privileges the German population in Denmark enjoyed were becoming used more and more often not to allow the “Volksdeutsche” to be able to benefit from Reich “protection” and ”preserve the bonds with the Vaterland” – but to allow the ”Reichsdeutsche” to escape Germany and move northwards (most commonly through fake marriages or as “long lost” relatives). This procedure has led to about 200.000 Germans migrating to Denmark in the years 1970 – 1976 alone, leading to the border being eventually closed in 1977 by German decree – same decrees being issued for the other borders with the western states at the time, in an attempt to stop the growing exodus of Germans from the Reich.
 
I started reading this timeline (I'm up to the third chapter on Slovakia), and it is simply amazing! :D Perhaps the best Three-way Cold War timeline/scenario I've seen thus far. I love how much detail and research is put into this, It makes for a great story. For exampled, all the political inns and outs, like the whole Danzig thing, was written/explained perfectly. :cool:

Also; Thanks Kongzilla, for posting MSZ's new updates. Even though I'm not nearly that far into this timeline reading wise, it is much appreciated. :)

Plus, I of course subbed this! :D
 
So where in the Soviet Union do they build up most of their naval presence in if the Baltic and Arctic regions are closed to their submarines?
 

Kongzilla

Banned
South America had remained on the fringes of the Cold War confrontation during both its height in the 50’s and early 60’s as well as the through the period of detente. “Protected” by the USA which was not taking kindly any European Global Great Power political involvement or infringement on what it perceived as its “area of vital interest”, as well as not being a target for direct expansion by the western empires, fascists or communists due to none of them having a large stake in the area. The minor exception had been France, which remained involved in a quasi-guerilla, quasi-police operation in French Guyana against local criminals, smugglers and anti-colonial militias, and Britain, which was involved in a territorial dispute over the Falkland Islands with Argentina, as well as supported its allies in Belize and the Caribbean Confederation against various insurgents and irredentists. South and Latin America was thus not an area where the Europeans directly intervened, the cold war there being an “internal matter” – the three ideologies clashing there through civil wars and irregular militia, only indirectly supported by foreigners and being strongly tied with organized crime organizations.

SA_Guiana_zps4d3a9af9.jpg


Experience gained in Indochina was put to good use in the jungle warfare in French Guiana.

While most of the countries of South and Latin America did look up to the USA as an inspiration for a wealthy, democratic, free society and state, their countries lacked most of the democratic traditions of North America, negatively affecting their attempts at introducing or maintaining a liberal republic. Mimicking the strong presidential executive branch has allowed for many strongmen to abuse their position of power, coming closer to being true dictators; on the other hand social-democratic reforms in America embolding various unions and other popular movements to demand changes in the spirit of socialism – including redistribution of land and nationalization of industries. Much like in Europe, the radical movements grew in power through the 30’s to the 50’s,but weakened after that as the effects of the Great Depression faded away, making liberal capitalism again more attractive. But unlike Europe, the fascist and communist movements were not totally destroyed, disarmed or reformed into using less political violence. They also did not become obscure minorities, as the number of people who truly believed in “always action rather than words” was significantly larger there than in Europe, providing a larger base for radical communists and fascists. The South American states had their own large share of social ills that liberalism had a hard time remedying (such as massive corruption, accumulation of a great amount of wealth and power in the hands of oligarchs and corporations, social inequality, poverty, crime).
Fascists and Communists thus had a constant large pool of potential followers whom they promised solving their countries problems: these groups often associated themselves with criminal organizations and paramilitary formations growing strong in those territories where state influence was weak; businessmen would fund and hire fascists to break up strikes or “communist agitators”; crime lords would hire communists to rob banks and trains “for redistribution efforts”. In those countries where fascists and communist groups were allowed to operate as legal political parties, their occasional support for the government was repaid with immunities from prosecutions, pardons and amnesties for those breaking the law; very few of their members ever remained imprisoned for long, jail-breaks being just as common as releases. In other countries where they would be banned, radicalization would make the more violent forming even larger anti-state military groups, becoming very powerful in the more poverty stricken areas. By becoming the “true” authority there. Being involved in “Robinhoodism” – raiding richer areas and distributing stolen goods to the poor – resolving land disputes by force, vigilantism, etc. had given them popularity and affected the perception of democracy in the eyes of the people, more often being seen as “weak” for not being able to stop such things.

SA_courthousefire2_zps8b4c46a3.jpg


Burning courthouses and police stations were symbolic acts, proving that “the state” had no authority in the area.

Ironically however, the more powerful these terrorist groups became “in the fields”, the weaker they became “in the cabinets”, as less politicians and these of the intellectual elite wanted to associate with them. Also, no matter how powerful they became, they couldn’t really challenge any established, disciplined military force – the “Cuban scenario” being their dream but not a realistic possibility. Causing havoc in their countries, their political class slowly begun to favour “forceful” solutions encouraged by foreign powers and the “opposite” radicals, turning towards and asking the military to step in and “clean the streets”. This type of mood have severely weakened the already feeble democracies in the region, as even the liberal forces began to support “extraordinary measures” to deal with “extraordinary threats” giving the example of Cincinnatus as proof that such sentiments were not anti-republican, but the contrary – were the “mature and bold” way to deal with the country’s problems.

SA_paramilitary_zps335417fc.jpg


Paramilitary organizations would gather tens of thousands of members, significantly destabilizing their countries, provoking the use of military rather than police force to fight them.

And it was not that those supporting either of the two totalitarian ideologies lacked arguments in support of their claims. While the USSR remained the example for the communists (Scandinavia and some of the US states for the moderate socialists), the right –wing fascists/”third-wayers” had a more local example in the form of Argentina (though Argentina, as well as many of the fascist groups on the continent did not call themselves straightforwardly fascists). “Peronism” or “Argentinian fascism” has obtained numerous supporters in South America, exactly for the reason that it was able to terminate the same social tensions that were present elsewhere. Enforcing corporatist legislation prevented strikes as well as provided workplaces (though with salaries varying strongly from factory to factory); ethnic legislation along with “minorities rights” combined with “White Argentina” propaganda has ghettoized many “natives” preventing ethnic clashes. Peron had been carefully playing Germany, the UK and the USA, weaving between them, trying to maintain good relations with all of them, ensuring capital flow and “open trade” with them. His leadership was praised for raising the average standard of living – though than happened roughly for only half the population The side effects of his rule – lack of political freedoms, ghettoes, high debt - left “the other half” of the population “behind”, not able to reap the fruits of development, their situation even relatively worsening. Those problems were however ignored by followers outside Argentina , claimed to be solvable either by giving the system more time , or by implementing “their modification” to the third way system.

SA_Buenos_Aires_zps811ada47.jpg


Buenos Aires would become a symbol of Argentinian fascism even in its architecture – grandiose buildings and modern houses with the well-off, surrounded and in between second class and quality buildings and citizens.

Such was the basis for the political instability that plagued South and Latin America for decades, eventually creating the stereotype of the entire continent being a “mosaic of banana republics”, ruled by military or “military-wannabe” people, charismatic caudillos, either with a nationalistic-fascist background or a socialist-communist one. The way such people got to power varied – in some cases they were elected to their posts and given power, in other, power was taken once elected. Coups of various types were another way, be they “anti-democratic” or “democratic” ones – most cases the latter still ending up as the former. The USA did notice these trends in the Southern continent, yet was hesitant to take action or even to make a stance regarding these occurrences, mostly being only interested in economic, not political issues. This isolationist policy by which it sought to avoid getting involved in “ideological” conflicts, clashed with its perception of South America being in its “sphere of influence” – the USA sought to maintain its economic interests there without getting politically involved, taking action which would be deemed hostile by the global great powers, or by the local followers of their ideologies. However with economics and politics becoming increasingly more tied to each other, getting politically involved would become inevitable.

SA_Organization_American_States_zps9eea433b.jpg


The formation of the Organization of American States would be one of the first steps towards greater Pan-American cooperation

The 50’s were a time when the USA still looked at South and Latin America as a place for beneficial trade deals and cheap resources. By the 60’s the situation had become unstable enough to become a pressing issue in Washington. President Kennedy was a strong supporter of the “democratization” of the world, South America taking up a large part of his second term’s foreign policy efforts. Kennedy sought to “stop the expansion of fascism” and “authoritarian nationalism” which he deemed the greatest threat to democracy there – in his idealized views, the socialists and communists being possible to negotiate with. A socialist himself, he honestly believed in the possibility of creating the same social-democratic system like in the USA in every part of the world, despite poverty, lack of infrastructure or different mentalities of peoples. His dream was the integration of the socialists (including the militant ones) into the state structures of South American republics and having them abide by democratic rules. Fascism and nationalism were thus his greatest opponents.

Kennedy had taken an active approach towards South America – about 50% of his foreign visits being there. He strongly spoke against the introduction of repressions and suspending civil liberties for security reasons, as well as the militaries influence on domestic politics. He also lobbied for the legalization of socialist/left wing organizations there where they were banned. Argentina had eventually become a symbol of what was “the wrong path” for South America, Peron his nemesis. Their only meeting in Buenos Aires in 1967 being a legendary one, with their joint press conference/debate being a battle of wits taking place before the public eye – the background for which was the basis for the award winning movie “They” in 1977.

SA_juan-peron_zps8af827ce.jpg


Juan Peron would be depicted as a monster in much of the American media, his natural charm and charism being insufficient to win the hearts of the “Norteamericanos

The “one at a time” approach Kennedy took in his dealings with South America would undergo a massive change with the introduction of the “Fulbright Plan Fund” in 1965 – a huge initiative named after James William Fulbright, the under-secretary in the department of State responsible for South America. The Fulbright Plan was an effort meant to combine the traditional interests of the USA in South America with the idealism of Kennedy and the social-democrats in the Democratic Party, through the creation of a system where aid, support, investments, loans and other benefits would be granted to the countries of South America depending on their stance towards democratic freedoms, republicanism, civil liberties and other “quintessential elements” of a social-democratic society. The Fulbright Fund was financed from a great deal of sources, ranging from direct governmental transfers, through parts of the tolls and tariffs coming from intra-American trade to donations from private companies, societies and even individuals. The countries of South America were to be allowed access to those funds should they fulfill criteria which were public and which were the same to all of them – excluding the Caribbean Confederation and Belize. The more they lived up to the expectations (or demands, as they were also seen that way), the more available that money was to be. Criticism that such a system reduced the very complex profession of diplomacy to a mathematical equation with no regard to local circumstances and environment were ignored by Kennedy, who above all wanted to send a clear signal that the USA had no preferences and biases towards other countries and had the same, equal expectations of all of them – and would judge them accordingly. The argument that such a system would also lead to it being used instrumentally by the Latin American authoritarian leaders by only allowing as much freedom as it suited them and still be financed by the USA was countered with the statement that the aid wasn’t meant for other governments but for the people (or for public projects meant for the people) and that they should not be punished for the actions of their leaders; additionally, Kennedy spoke often as how he had a great deal of faith in the “freedom loving spirit” of the Latino-Americans, who would pressure and fight for their liberties once they realized the benefits they gave – both by themselves and from US aid – the neighboring countries which would go further in upholding American ideals being expected to prosper quickly and the increase in their wealth mobilizing others to follow them.

SA_Fulbright_Plan_zpsc8d6c9cb.png


The Labeling used on Fulbright Plan aid packages.

Apart from cash, an equally important part of the Fulbright fund involved the distribution of goods from the USA to South America – and a great deal of them. Part of the Fulbright Plan idea was that the impoverished people of South America could be relatively easily be enriched by providing them with things the rich USA considered “waste”, or otherwise were ready to dispose of. This meant not only common things like food or domestic appliances, but also a great part of the overproduction of the US industrial complex. As part of the Fulbright plan legislation was put in place that allowed the government to seize the goods that were “overproduced” by private companies in their financial year – the compensation for which was lower than the market price, but usually also higher than disposal/destruction costs. While many companies would try to hide their “overproduction” from their authorities (despite such seizures not being obligatory and almost everyone who petitioned for being allowed to keep it being granted it), it was also an opportunity for many who saw it as chance of getting easily rid of goods they otherwise wouldn’t be able to sell at all – cutting their storage and disposal costs. This was just as true for businesses large and small of any kind – basically, anything that was to go bad or was meant to be thrown away or destroyed, was to be bought by the State, transferred to the Fulbright Fund assets and further to South America, where even the old, damaged or out of fashion goods were still considered extremely valuable (the US government also covering transportation costs). Domestic appliances, building materials, chemicals, wood and iron products, cars and car parts, paper industry products – truly anything that persisted in warehouses that wouldn’t be sold in the expected future was something that the USA were willing to forcefully buy out and give out to the South Americans. The success of this program was such that not a few companies actually began to use the Fulbright Fund as a source of profit, producing goods solely for the purpose of them being bought off by the state (as the state was an almost certain buyer of any amount). Criticism over this program was immense, especially due its costs and uncertain profits from, making it extremely controversial – but also very successful in building the image of the USA as a “good neighbor” and “friend of all people”, contributing to the image of Joseph Kennedy as one of the greatest Presidents of the USA in history. While often called that it was a “trash program”, “giving out second-hand goods” – few in South America (apart from some who claimed they were “better than that” to accept such charity and “American rubbish”) would refuse to accept an old but working refrigerator or car, if it was to be free (or almost free) and the first one in their lives. Many US brands came to be very well-recognized in South America thanks to their products making it there, their owners getting a new market for future production. Trade between the Fulbright Fund benefactors and the USA would grow over the next decades, the plan being considered an immense success almost on par with the New Deal, contributing in the establishment of middle classes in South American states. It would be one of the reasons for establishing a market dominance of American products in South America, thus also limiting the presence of the European powers in the region. The sign “For South American Development – Supplied by the United States of America” being associated with the “good hearts” of the American people and the USA as a whole. Many of those living under undemocratic rule would come to look up to the USA as an ally in their struggle – those countries that benefited from the Fulbright Plan the most (such as Cuba) undergoing an economic boom and a social “revolution”.

SA_Fulbright_Plan_flour_zps74a0dcb4.png


Flour provided through the Fulbright Plan helped relieve large parts of South America from famine and malnourishment.

The Fulbright Plan had also a large social effect on the American society. State propaganda encouraged people to participate in the plan by giving their used goods to the Fulbright Fund – collections being organized in churches and town halls, supported by many social organizations. This was in part an answer to the growing consumerism and the amount of “disposable goods” available in the USA – socialist philosophy seeing it as a potential problem of overusing resources and generating excess waste. “Giving to the needy” was thus seen as a favorable alternative, even if it meant that the donator would end up paying for it from his tax money (another point of criticism). Segregation of trash would slowly become a common trend in the USA, contributing in the future in the development of recycling – both the social awareness of its importance and the technologies needed for it. Continued organization and development of the Fulbright Fund Plan led to the formation of facilities meant for the storage of gathered/donated goods on all administrative levels - these being used in the future as waste sorting plants, waste disposal, but also a place for charity runs and auctions (as not all goods for the Fulbright Plan ended up in Latin America, some ending up being redistributed within the USA itself). The Plan thus became in part responsible for the popularization of ecology in the USA and the “green movement”, which would come to associate itself with the socialists and social-democrats.

Kennedy’s presidency would redefine American foreign policy by not only beginning the process of bringing the USA out of isolationism, but also setting up its foreign policy doctrine for the post-isolationist times. The American political scene remained divided about what exactly America’s position in the global order should be, if it was to participate in global affairs. The general split was between those who supported a “western hemisphere” preference – a “one step development” from the traditional Monroe doctrine – and those who supported a “Anglosphere” preference – staying together with the west, particularly the BCoN in the struggle against the totalitarian systems. And although Joseph Kennedy would remain a supporter of the latter, the former would not escape his attention. Numerous of his successors would also come to prefer remaining more distant from Europe and Asia, the split in part becoming one combined with the division of the political scene. While the Democrats would maintain the belief that the USA interests and moral obligations were global – thus it having to work together with the rest of the “free world” – the Republicans would remain more conservative, thoughtful of what effects American involvement in others affairs would have on both sides, mindful of the freedom of peoples to choose their own path – rather than forcing or bribing others into following one thought of as “the right one” by ideologists, who would then spend tax money on expanding their ideology. This moral conflict would be part of the large social debate on isolationism, post-isolationism and American foreign policy for decades to come.

SA_Noentanglements_zpsb48dc25e.jpg


Isolationism remained a part of America’s public debate, with pro-British and anti-British sentiment being present.

But despite the efforts of the democratic forces in the USA and in the South American countries themselves, they would not be able to stem the advance of the authoritarian rulers. In Bolivia, the Revolutionary Nationalist Movement (MNR) would take power democratically in the elections in 1951, and over the next dozen years slowly increasing the powers of the government, as a necessary mean of pushing through their reforms. Claimed as “national” ones, they would become with time more closely associated with Marxists doctrine, including the nationalization of industries, price fixing and expropriation of land in favour of collectivist agriculture. Reaching towards the native population, such as the Aymara and Quechua peasants, who made up more than half of the country’s population, they encouraged them to vote, providing themselves with a strong voting base. Populist reforms which supported those tribes at the expanse of the rest of the population (claimed as “compensation of past wrongs”, as well as “them also being citizens”, thus being justifiable) would provide the MNR with enough support to give them a parliamentary majority (though accusations of voting fraud were common).

SA_MNR_rally_zps0021fe65.jpg


A MNR rally. The Revolutionary Nationalist Movement was a true mass-movement, combining people of many ethnicities in the name “equality”.

This was an example of another perversion of democratic principles in South America, which however would also become present in other non-homogenous countries, particularly in post-colonial Africa. With citizenship being given to every inhabitant, but tribal afflictions remaining strong, gaining the support of the larger ”tribes” through populist promises and fulfilling them through administrative means was an easy way of maintaining a parliamentary majority, and thus push through ones agenda – in other words, “bribing the majority with public money”, which was much easier to do and justify in multi-ethnic states where one or some of the “ethnicities” had historically been removed in the past from the political process. Those who benefited from such populist rulers would also most often not associate themselves too strongly with “the state”, or coming to believe such policies were completely fair given their past treatment; the rest saw the same as privileges and going against the republican spirit of “citizens” being equal regardless of ethnic background. Conflict would thus grow, with such two sides becoming increasingly hostile to each other, democratic process becoming ineffective, as the “political majority” became equivalent with “ethnic majority” – the latter being impossible to change, thus creating a situation of a “permanent majority” based on ethnicity. Democratic process required that people put their political beliefs before their ethnic origin and vote accordingly, allowing for the majority to change over time; but with “ethnic interest” being always more important than “political interest”, the followers of various “ideologies” of the same ethnicity putting their political differences aside to band together in the name of “ethnic interest” and even allowing whoever was in charge of such political-ethnic group to act against their political belief, vote results could be easily predicted according to demography and political differences became of secondary importance to ethnic ones. Thus also “political conflicts” becoming “national ones”, creating a breeding ground for civil wars and strife.

SA_MNR_zpsb0cf0874.jpg


A MNR militia.

In Bolivia, such conflict would eventually end up with a military coup power in 1964, led by the “National Bolivians” who opposed the perceived reforms as “too socialists”. They succeeded in toppling the MNR government, quickly imposing a military dictatorship and beginning to strike down past “marxist” legislation – fuelling civil strife, leading to year-long unrests and riots, brutally crushed by the military. But their rule wouldn’t last, Bolivia quickly descending into economic chaos and collapse, the new government incapable of finding any support either domestically or from foreigners. This resulted in a counter-coup led by the military left-wingers in 1969 led by one Juan Torres, formerly an ally of the “National Bolivians”, who however quickly left their ranks. Elections held the next year guaranteed victory to the Christian Democratic Community – a mix of socialist and “liberation theology” Christian Democrats with Juan Torres becoming President of the new left wing government. A self-proclaimed “man of compromise”, he promised the conciliation between the right and left wingers, though his actions spoke differently – organizing a purge in the military and police removing all he perceived as disloyal to him just four months after elections. Calling it a “preventive disarmament”, to ensure no one would try to use force against the “democratic republic”, he thus ended up as the sole authority in the state with no opposition. Elections held in 1975 would take place under a new electroal law meant to support his position and be universally viewed as rigged, despite his rule being rather popular overall (enough that most observers expected him to win without any fraud). This was mostly done for the purpose of denying seats to those MPs viewed by him as “internal opposition”, further consolidating his rule in Bolivia.

SA_Juan_Torres_zps406addd6.jpg


Juan Torres, President of Bolivia

Chile had been an example of another South American phenomena, that being the turn of the Christian Democrats to the left, and away from the “traditional” conservatives. That was in a large part the effect of the strong position of the Catholic Church there, combined with the development of the “theology of liberation”. While the Church had maintained its stance of opposition towards both fascism and communism, and a general preference of “Christian Democracy” in democratic states, most of its doctrine was established and developed by European clerics and dealt with issues faced by Christians there – not being completely in tune with the situation in the New World, despite its universalist message. This led much of the local clergy to embrace many of the populist/socialist postulates of “caring for the common man” through state-sponsored redistribution – even forceful. Christian Democratic and Social Democratic parties began to drift closer to each other, alliances and coalitions between them not being something unusual. In Chile, the result of this trend was the long-lasting of the “Radical Party” – in fact a broad coalition of social democrats, agrarians, liberals and Christian democrats, considered to be a “centrist” party, but with both its centre-right and centre-left wings very strong. It dominated Chilean politics for over two decades, only briefly losing power for eight years between 1956 and 1964 to the conservatives, after it which it returned to prominence. Over the decades however, it underwent a significant evolution, turning more strongly towards the left – though maintaining the symbolism and phraseology of the liberals and Christian democrats, cooperating with the clergy.

SA_liberationtheology_zpsff31d11c.jpg


Liberation theology propaganda. It called for the combination of Christian faith with political activism for the betterment of the people and “a just system”.

Victory in the elections in 1964, coupled with the works of the Second Vatican Council had given the Chilean government a strong mandate to rule, which it wanted to use in introducing far reaching reforms, aimed at bettering the living standards through better housing and education, achieved through a land reform, nationalization of natural resources and their extraction as well as numerous state monopolies (among them, on alcohol and tobacco). The reforms found significant support among the lower-middle class and upper-lower class of Chile, though were opposed by the rich elite; also, many socialist and communist parties and unions opposed them as being “too social-democratic”, a way to “appease the working class” rather than granting them freedom. While initially being successful and implemented, Chile found itself unable to fund them and had to resort to foreign credits to reach its goals. Prosperity was thus bought rather than worked for, leading to collapse in the early 70’s once it became apparent it was incapable of financing its debt. Chile found itself on the verge of bankruptcy, being used by neighbouring Argentina as an example of the failures of capitalism – Peronist Argentina managing to avoid an economic collapse, and by 1971 the average wealth of a Chilean being significantly lower than an Argentinian. The “competition” between the two (as much of the political class of Chile had spoken about “exceeding Argentina” as their long-term goal and that being the supposed proof of the superiority of their ideology) seemed like being won by Peron after all, and despite Chile receiving much support from the USA.

With the country virtually bankrupt, the Radical Party broke apart and the country ended up with a political crisis atop an economic one. The population shifted their views towards the more leftist socialists, leading to the victory of the “Radical Socialist Party” made up from the Socialist Party and the left-wing elements of the former Radical Party. Wining the elections, they did not manage to obtain a majority though, resulting with the runner up (the Christian Conservative Party) scoring just slightly worse (30% to the Radical Socialists 31%). Coupled with the Communist Party and the Nationalist Party both getting slightly under 20%, it was expected that a “post-Radical Party coalition” of the Socialists and Conservatives would form. But left wing sympathy would lead to something different, the Radical Socialist Party allying with the Communists and creating a small majority parliament (with only 5 votes more than 50%).

SA_Chileelections_zps42b8975b.jpg


Electoral victory of the Radical Socialist Party brought masses to the streets.

The new government was greatly feared by both the Conservatives and Nationalists due to the highly unusual conditions under which the alliance between the Socialists and Communists was formed, as well as the rather secretive nature in which negotiations were held. With Pablo Neruda being awarded the position of President and many Communists given ministerial posts, it was assumed that the true goal of the new government was to be a Marxist revolution – Neruda being old and not accustomed to politics, and being expected to become a puppet of the communists. More likely however, the coalition was made in order to on the one hand, break the spirit of the conservatives who held the belief they were the only party the Socialists could talk with, on the other – to prevent the new government from ending constantly fighting about the past and pinning blame for the situation the country was in.

SA_Neruda_zps26ba0e73.jpg


Pablo Neruda, first “communist” President of Chile

The crisis had led to an extensive flight of capital in Chile, to which the government reacted by attempting to “activate” whatever of it remained; prices were frozen and taxes raised, the government undertaking a massive redistribution effort. Banking and insurance companies were nationalized. This heavily affected industrial production, private businessmen choosing to close their factories and shops; these moves were answered with more government interference obliging the owners to continue their business even at deficit. This in turn led to emigration of the rich, as well as the middle-class owners once the socialist government increased their pressure on them, in the form of taxation and “social function of property” legislation. Rapid socialist reforms however only made the bad situation worse, leading the government to take more and more radical measures, eventually coming to introduce public works programs to fight rising unemployment. Police efforts in keeping peace and fighting crime were aided with the formation of “volunteer citizens militia”, initially thought of as an auxiliary service for keeping order and fighting petty crime, like littering or vandalism. Later however they grew more out of control being used to fight political enemies and exercising “vigilante justice”.

And while altogether and objectively those means might have been considered to be “only” extraordinary and partly failed, given the circumstances the perception of them being a prelude for something greater. It became common to speak of the actions of the left wing government as “exercising the doctrine of Lenin – the worse, the better”. By 1974, inflation in Chile reached superinflation levels, as currency was printed to finance the government-taken over businesses and new institutions employing the unemployed (including those in the public works programs). Crime grew to levels unheard of, as did “political violence” – though in truth, it was more class-directed, being driven by a simple pursuit for money. With the upper and upper-middle class broken, the middle class became the one start fighting back, organizing strikes, disrupting the country. Right-wing militias began organizing into bands in the high Andes, arming in expectation of an “imminent class war”. The military would too grow increasingly impatient, as political pressures for using the military to crush opposition increased. When first officers began to be dismissed from their posts, the military began to shift in the direction of the political opposition to the government.

SA_chile-stadium_zpsfc18f0ba.jpg


Chilean riot police and volunteer citizen militias patrolling the streets could sometimes hardly be distinguished from regular military.

This was the point when foreign involvement in Chile began to peak. Argentina has held a great interest in Chile, as did Germany, almost instinctively acting on its sudden turn to the left. While most of the democratic opposition looked towards the USA for support, the weaknesses of Kennedy’s doctrine and the Fulbright Plan began to show – tying itself to set-out principles, the USA reacted to the increasingly undemocratic means used by Santiago with restrictions on investments, trade and capital flow, further harming the economy. American advisors suggested a completely different plan of action, either calling for Chile to declare bankruptcy, or by selling the natural resources-industry in previously nationalized to foreign investors – or both. Those were means unacceptable to the communists though, who threatened to withdraw support for the government should they be utilized. America thus found its own foreign policy principles restricting its possible freedom of action despite having good intentions – as it did want to prevent Chile from falling to an authoritarian ruler. The USSR was a silent ally of Chile, though one incapable of providing the country with what in needed the most – hard currency and new technologies in factories. Washington looked suspiciously at Moscow’s attempts at coming closer to South America overall, offering a number of summits to discuss the situation bilaterally – most of which the USSR accepted, though also wanted for them to take place with the representatives of the countries in question participating. The USA found itself facing a tough dilemma - fighting for preservation of its “sphere of influence” in South America would have to affect American – Soviet relations, thus forcing Washington to choose between preserving relatively fine relations with Moscow (which’s system and ideology forced it to act the way it did in South America, rather than actual geopolitical interests). Keeping the Soviets out was a tough policy to support when talks were voluntary and “mutually beneficial” according to all parties involved.
On the other hand, the right wing opposition looked towards Germany and more importantly Argentina for aid in their struggle against the “Marxist clique” that was taking over the country. Slowly, small bands of anti-communists would form and organize into para-military formations, taking shelter in the high Andes, on the border with Argentina – the latter providing it with token material support. These groups did not refrain from political violence, being involved in a number of assassinations/car bomb attacks on state officials. This hardly gave them any support among the general population, bur nevertheless, Buenos Aires and Berlin thought of them as potentially useful tools in exercising their own agendas in Chile. The possibility of another “March on Rome” to take place there was something of a dream for some of the fascists, who also adopted the mentality of “the worse, the better” – economic depression and political instability was expected to eventually cause the collapse of the “Marxists clique”, which would either have to use force to keep itself in power, or be vulnerable to the use of force in removing them – either way, the fascist planned for a forceful option, a civil war not being excluded.

SA_chilean_mountain_guerillas_zps962b2a11.jpg


Chilean mountain guerrillas in the Andes

And it was the fascists who came closest in predicting how events would play out, though not exactly how they planned. With Chile on the verge of a socio-economic collapse, the brutality of the government increased, and its means to fight the crisis became increasingly more responsible for deepening them. While it managed to maintain a majority following the 1974 elections (with the communists doing slightly better than last time), support for it quickly dropped. Even normal administrative procedures and actions began to be looked at with suspicion – exchanging the management of failing government enterprises as purges, any changes within the police or military as “political takeover of the state-force administration”. This environment had eventually led to the military no longer being able to stand aside. Plans for a coup were started already in late 1976, and managed to be kept secret from the government, which at the time relied more on the police force to keep order, the military being only gradually “defanged” by some high-ranking officers being sent to retirement every few months. In 1977, the decision was being made to remove José Toribio Merino – one of the leaders of the officers plot - from the position of Chief of the Navy. This was, according to all evidence just a coincidence, but one that was interpreted by the coupists that the “forces that be” were on to them. Thus their hand was forced. The amount of German and Argentinian support for the coup would remain for a long time a matter of speculation – while it was certain that those fascist states did work against the government, supporting paramilitary groups, financing right-wing newspapers, creating pirate radio stations, etc. – no actual connection between the coupists and Buenos Aires or Berlin was found, though on the other hand both of them were aware of a coup being planned and that it would be executed.

On the 8th of April 1977, the coup was started with the Navy taking over a number of cities and towns near to its bases, marking the sign for the coup to start – information on that was passed to president Neruda as well as his cabinet members. Upon gathering in the Presidential palace, the government was informed of an upcoming coup, and urged to allow for the military to enter the capital to safeguard it. Unbeknownst to it, both the chief of the Chilean Army Augusto Pinochet, as well as the regional commander of the II Motorized Division were both working with the coupists. In the meantime, telephone lines were cut, forcing the government to rely on communication with the rest of country through the military – which was plotting to remove it from power. Giving out the order to both the police and the military to “restore order” (the order to the police, expected to be loyal never reaching its chief) and declaring martial law, the military began a takeover sanctioned by the very president which it sought to remove. For a number of hours the president was being fed false information about arresting groups of rebels, battles with them and breaking their power in the region, while in truth it had been the government-associated parties that were being arrested, peacefully (on the nominal authority of the government) and not. By the end of the day the military held full control of the country, whereas the government was still in the dark; this only changed in the evening of April 8, when the junta members all arrived in Santiago de Chile in the Presidential Palace revealing the truth. The government was placed under house arrest, forced to surrender power at gunpoint, later to be put on trial. The coup had cost over a hundred lives, mostly those who refused to submit to the military, realising a coup was going on.

SA_chilean_coup_zps374b9efa.jpg


Chilean military taking control of the Presidential Palace, administration workers on the ground.

But despite the popular view of South America being inherently unstable and ruled by military cliques, descending only one way from democracy and republicanism to either military backed nationalism or socialism, that wasn’t the case – a notable example being Brazil. The quasi-fascist dictator Getulio Vargas managed to maintain power in the state almost until his death in 1960, only being forced to resign under the pressure of the democratic, socialist and internal opposition in 1958 – the latter de facto being the ones to lead the anti-Vargas coalition, recruiting the non-fascists in a bid to overcome the power of the president, who remained relatively popular till the end. New, indirect elections were held, electing Joao Goulart to the post of President – a former ally of Vargas, who later in his life began opposing his mentor and leading the opposition against him among the integralists. Thought of by them a “compromise candidate”, to be accepted by both the National Democrats and the Labour Party, his election did not however satisfy the population, who demanded free and direct elections. After parliamentary elections in 1960, the results brought a nominal victory of the Integralists, though it was only achieved thanks to the specific electoral laws – the National Democrats winning the popular vote. Goulart was thus faced with pressure from both within and abroad – his authority not being as powerful as his predecessor, he couldn’t exercise the same degree of dictatorial power. While Vargas could hope for silent support of both the west and the fascists on the international stage, Goulart could not – Brasil’s cold relations with Argentina being a strain on its relations with Germany and Italy, his non-democratic rule also bringing the UK and the isolationism-leaving USA to demand democratic reforms, to supplement late-Vargas era economic liberalization (which were also supported by Goulart).

SA_goulart_zps4255605c.jpg


Joao Goulart, the first post-Vargas president of Brazil

The end of Goulart’s term in 1963 was marked by an extremely well-organized general strike, with the demand being not only political freedoms, release of political prisoners, restoring civil liberties – but most importantly, holding free, direct, presidential elections with the oppositions participation. This was a sure sign of the complete deterioration of populist integralism, which now appeared to have little actual supporters – and having either “open” opponents outside the regime, or internal ones, who sought to change the state from within. With Vargas being able to cripple the communist movement in Brazil to a point of its non-relevance, his final years, and those of his successor lacked an opponent to justify the harsh measures used by them to maintain power. Popular demands were aided by foreign pressure, as the USA and UK also began threatening to withdraw their assets from Brazil and introduce sanctions, cutting it off from the capital even Goulart knew he needed to introduce his reforms. Under these circumstances, elections were held in a democratic manner, even under League of Nations oversight. Those were won by Carlos Lacerda, a staunch opponent of the integralists, he himself a “liberal conservative” – liberal in economy, conservative in social manners. His personal appeal, charisma, and history of oppositionsim allowed him to easily win the elections. His victory came along almost parallel with the Fulbright Plan, which he used to his full advantage, starting a strongly pro-US set of reforms, distancing Brazil from the fascists.

SA_Lacerda_zpsa7bcb8f3.png


Carlos Lacerda, the first President of “modern”, democratic Brazil.

Using the newly acquired funds, Lacerda started a large program of modernizing and developing utilities and urban areas – the industrialization of former decades did not take place together with developing of the urban areas to take care of the cities growing populations. Running water, gas, electricity and housing projects were funded by the state with US aid, new housing blocs being furnished with Fulbright Plan-brought goods – all in an attempt to fight the growth of shanty towns and slums forming in the outskirts of the cities, which were to be replaced with at least mid-grade quality concrete panel-houses. “Sustained development” was to be achieved through conservative means, urbanization actually being tried to be stopped so as to prevent “overurbanization” – the cities holding a population too great for them to maintain. Land reforms supported a “westwards migration” movement into the tropical jungles of Brazil, basically allowing anyone to claim a land allotment for a very low price should one be able to clear it from vegetation beforehand. US and western companies were very much willing to co-finance such clearing operations and give loans to those farmers willing to take the risk to start new plantations (in case of failure, the cleared land serving as collateral). Brazil underwent a large agricultural and industrial boom, the great amount of money brought through the Fulbright Plan succeeding in advancing much of the impoverished population into a lower-middle class, living in either small farming towns in the west on newly “redeemed” land, or in the developing cities. These reforms and social changes caught the attention of the American public and popular culture, Brazil being now seen as the modern incarnation of “Manifest Destiny”-era USA, developing an urban-industrial society in the east, together with settlement in the west, bringing “civilization” to the (literal) jungle. The country was even re-named back to the “United States of Brazil” (from the Vargas-introduced “State of Brazil” in 1950), further strengthening the similarities. Combined with Lacerda social conservatism, the country was praised by much of the right-wing of the USA political scene, for them becoming the USA’s main “partner of choice” in South America. The success of the country could well be proven by its demography, rapidly gaining a great deal of immigrants arriving from Europe, Africa and even other South American countries – its population growing in between the years 1960-1980 from circa 70 million to over 120 million.

SA_farmingtown_zpse1607d8c.jpg


Farming towns in Brazil would be erected in the west, partly drawing from the “Garden City movement” developments in Europe.

Carlos Lacerda would thus gain the title of the “Father of modern Brazil”, the National Democratic Party holding power continuously until 1985. Being re-elected in 1965, he oversaw the democratization of Brazil and its establishment as a recognized, stable power in the south-western hemisphere. His economic reforms brought a period of prosperity, and though the country was ultimately incapable of reaching the same level of wealth as North America or Western Europe – which was the stated goal – it did manage to significantly lower the level of poverty in the country and creating a growing middle class, becoming the “poster boy” of the democratic powers in the Cold War, proof of the success of liberalism when given the right support and conditions. Lacerada would once again run in the elections in 1975, but would not live till its end, dying in office in 1977, succeeded by Renato Archer. While he favored economic liberalism and private initiative, seeing it as a better way to tap into the massive natural wealth Brazil held than state-sponsored programs, he was not a full liberal, preferring to provide a degree of state support for domestic enterprises when in competition with much more powerful and wealthy opponents, and even maintained a number of state monopolies – most importantly on oil and alcohol (though the latter was hardly enforced, bringing a culture of Brazilian moonshine, later becoming a well-known export product, similar to Mexican Tequila). It would also come to benefit from tourism, its beaches being a common destination for the South American, but also the Western elite and even middle class.

SA_Rio_zps64277aae.png


Rio de Janeiro would become one of the centres of Brazilian, but also global tourist industry.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
Historians and political scientists would long debate over whether the period of détente could have possibly transformed into a permanent settlement and peace, leading to an earlier end to the cold war, or whether it rekindling was ultimately inevitable. It wasn’t really certain what exactly was the reason for tensions going back up, if it was a sudden surge of hostile attitude, or if that attitude was there all the time even during the detente, just kept under the carpet, hidden behind a facade of smiles of calming interpretations of ongoing events by politicians. Most scholars would eventually (that is, after the Cold War was over) come to the conclusion that what led to the renewal of confrontations was the strengthening of the western powers through the period of détente, coupled with a radical, “brute” answer to it by the fascist and communist powers. With the USA going out of isolationism and establishing itself more firmly as a supporter of the west and their “struggle for democracy”, the British Empire completely transforming and reforming into the British Commonwealth of Nations, its structure stabilizing and becoming an aid to the UK rather than a burden and France’s extensive economic and social reforms being rewarded with significant growth, allowing it to reclaim the title of a true great power, the west could feel more confident standing up to the aggressive totalitarian ideologies than in the past. The prediction that only a decade of peace and growth would be able to prove the superiority of the capitalist model of free trade and representative democracy had proven entirely true; the fascists and communists having a hard time answering such a challenge.

UK_Anti_National_Front_zps97ed0492.jpg

Fascism had progressively been declining in popularity since the late 50’s, the active anti-fascists beginning to stage their own demonstration against the Nazis

The impressive growth in wealth and prestige came as a tough, indirect assault on the fascist and communist powers. Partial liberalization during the détente period allowed the people to take a better look on how the lives in the west were and made their own homes look bleak in comparison. This came to point where such silent demands as “having a life like in the west” became regarded as “dangerous thoughts” and a threat to the system. The only answer the totalitarian ideologies could provide was more ideology, more threats, sabre rattling, proclamations of powerhood, anti-western propaganda. Whether these “answers” were the result of changes in the power structure of Nazi Germany and the USSR, the west using its newfound power to “encroach” on the areas of influence of the fascists and communists (or just the perception of that occurring, seen from Berlin and Moscow), the logical development of these regimes ideologies and perceived national interests or just dissatisfaction with the actions or predecessors, force and brinksmanship being seen as means of distinguishing oneself from them, wasn’t really certain at the time. This also meant that everyone would automatically come to blame the others for the re-start of hostilities – the west doing it the most, its press, media, free-thinkers and such actually blaming London, Paris and Washington for being responsible for German and Soviet aggressiveness by not restraining themselves and not accepting the status quo, even though for the last decades it have been the fascists and communists who sought to change it - and with some success.
The economic development of the fascist and communist states had been significantly slower, their economies suffering from overcentralization, overbureaucratization, inefficiency at redistribution of generated wealth, mismanagement mostly exemplified by massive spending on projects which did not live up to their expectations at generating prosperity, or those which were funded solely for ideological reasons, without any thought about their economic aspects. This was the greatest curse of both the communist and Nazi ideology, both of which deemed even thinking in terms of “costs and profits” as “Jewish” or “bourgeois” when it came to ideological matters. Lots of money gathered from the people would be wasted on it, such policies being explained through indoctrination and propaganda – its effectiveness however could only last when the people were still relatively well-off and economic growth was present (and when such ideology did not come in the way of their personal profits and ambitions). By the end of the détente, most fascist states were experiencing a significant economic slowdown, as did the USSR. Communist China was in a straight out depression, suffering from the tragic effects of Mao’s attempts of modernization and industrialization known as the “cultural revolution”, while the south east Asian countries were still experiencing the effects of their wars.

UK_immigrants_zps1eea8359.jpg


Asian immigration to the west was among the most visible signs of the failures of communism; immigration of central Europeans also increased at the same time.

While the Soviet economy could not escape from its position as a “resource exporting” economy – its industrial goods being used pretty much solely by the USSR itself and other Communist states – the German Reich was in a significantly better position, despite decades of fascist rule. Its developed industry continued to produce goods demanded not only on the “closed” fascist market of central Europe, but on the global “free” market as well – and it weren’t just weapons of war. Many consumer and commercial goods of German making remained popular in the west despite years passing, competition and smear campaigns against them, coupled with boycotts. OSRAM lightbulbs, VARTA batteries, NIVEA cosmetics, PERSIL washing powder, ODOL mouthwash, BAYER medicines, Dr. Oetker “ready” meals, and many more products of the German electric, chemical, medical, food and other industries did remain competitive and considered high quality, making them popular. Centralization and cartelization of German industries did not always mean the death of established brands – while many of them did suffer such an end, even those with decades of traditions, upon being forced into state-controlled (or owned) enterprises, some companies were allowed to keep making their goods under the old brand – just under different management.

Ger_Fanta_zpsadfae43b.jpg


The popular Fanta drink had been the object of a great dispute between the German Reich and the Coca-Cola company, due to the nationalization of Coca-Cola plants in 1942, leading to both the American company and Germany claiming the rights to the drink.

As Germany had been experiencing economic difficulties since the early 40’s, suffering from cash shortages and closed markets, it attempted to use various means to obtain necessary funds – both fair and foul. The western great powers had little restraint in organizing smear campaigns against Germans businesses, crippling their economic operations and subsidiaries, introducing embargos and banns on certain products, etc. In turn, Germany had tried to bypass those restrictions and obstacles. The German Sicherheitsdienst (SD – Security Service) had been converted into the Reich’s single, “civilian” Intelligence Agency after the reformation of the SS as well as other “special services” of the Nazi regime following the Yugoslav War, and since 1945, it had been involved in operations aimed at securing German economic interests worldwide. Starting out simply enough by creating import-export companies in Switzerland which would serve as a way to move German goods into France and further into the world despite the anti-German blockades, these operations would grow with time, as German trade would become more global and of larger scale. Connections with the Nazi regime would have to be more and better hidden, as well as more decentralized.

Ger_Bendlerblock_zpsed8a2c7e.jpg


The Bendlerblock palace, the headquarters of the SD.

In 1952, the “Department K” in the SD was established as Germany’s “industrial and economic espionage” unit, which would come to control massive amounts of financial wealth, coming from the management of the “secret Nazi economic empire”. Germany would make extensive use of the free market of the west and its deregulation, establishing a huge number of companies in foreign countries for the purpose of buying German goods, moving them across the border and re-selling them – no longer under a German, but a Swiss/French/American/British/etc. company. Profits would be moved back through a network of such companies and funds back to the Reich, the SD however “skimming from the top” – with time, becoming almost entirely self-sufficient in finances, such “illegal” money being used to finance its “black ops”. It would also make the SD an enormous political force, specifically due to its secrecy and independence – and not only in Germany. It wouldn’t be uncommon for SD officers to pose as businessmen in the west, offering financial assistance to failing companies, becoming their strategic investors – then using their financial control to further their own agendas. While mostly such companies would be discarded after a single use, or left to work on their own as “sleepers”, some would actually come to grow and prosper, becoming important in their sectors and markets. By having control over them, Nazi Germany had the tools to use them for its benefit, not only financially but politically as well – supporting the campaigns of the “right” candidates in elections, donating to various organizations, buying out industrial secrets not officially available to German companies and so on. The case officers of such companies would thus also find themselves handling not only people, but great fortunes as well.

The German “foreign economic empire” was subject to a lot of speculations, and while known to exist in some way by all of the western powers, none of them would grasp its full extent for a very long time. It was so large in fact, that it was considered to be one of the main reasons for which the Nazi regime managed to keep its economic growth in the 40’s, becoming Germany’s largest provider of hard currency then. With most restriction being lifted after 1953, it would only grow, using newfound opportunities to its advantages. The SD would be involved in numerous activities “for profit only” – ranging from perfectly legal stock market games, to cooperation with the Italian/German organized crime mobs, sometimes going so far as SD “thugs” taking part in bank robberies. The humongous secrecy of this part of the SD (secret even for many of the most-top Nazi leaders), as well as the complexity of the financial network (Switzerland being the main hub though) contrasted with the rest of German Intelligence, which otherwise wasn’t thought of as being “that” difficult to infiltrate – many Intelligence agencies in the west refusing to follow leads which might give them a grasp of what was going on based on the assumption of “if it happened, we would have known about it from Germany itself”.

This situation would last all the way until the late 70’s until the so called “Schwanitz affair” in the USA. Wolfgang Schwanitz had been a long-standing member of the SD, having joined it in 1950 and being among the founders of “Department K”. Advancing in ranks, he would eventually find himself in the USA, becoming the economic attaché in the German Embassy in Washington – as well as the head of Department K’s operations in the entire US – by 1971. In this position, he had great knowledge (though not control) over the SD activity and infiltration of US-located businesses – knowledge he used for his own benefits. Embezzling funds and using them to play the Wall Street stock market as a “private side project” would eventually end badly for him, losing over 150 million US dollars on silver speculations. Knowing such a huge mess-up would attract the attention of his superiors (and most likely have him executed), as well as the US authorities, Schwanitz had made a most unexpected move. On the 9th of November 1978 he casually exited the German embassy after work, drove to the FBI headquarters building where he turned himself over and defected. In an awkward twist of fate, at the same time and day the security systems of the German Embassy had been off-line – by the next day, the German diplomatic staff having no knowledge of when Schwanitz left the building or where he went. Reported missing to the American authorities, he was however under FBI protection, revealing the secrets of one of the largest Intelligence Agencies in the world. With the FBI already investigating a number of suspicious activities on the financial market, Schwanitz presented all the missing elements, giving to the USA an almost complete network of Nazi-involved companies in America (many of which had no idea of whom their backers really were). The investigation on his disappearance would be used as a guise for allowing the US to “poke” into the economic activities of Germany in the country, eventually exposing the entire affair, leading to one of the largest market shocks since the Great Depression. Over a thousand people would be arrested in the aftermath, hundreds of companies being closed or bankrupted, their assets seized. The scandal of German infiltration and connections with the criminal world (as well as the participation of Germans in financial fraud) would overshadow the fact of the ineffectiveness of the American law enforcement which allowed it to happen in the first place; it would also mark the beginning of similar anti-Nazi operations in the rest of the west, particularly in the UK and France. The SD would never regain its power after this blow, the scandal also leading to the head of the SD Rudi Mittig being dismissed from his position.

Ger_Schwanitz_zpsa59d4206.jpg


Wolfgang Schwanitz, the “Great Defector”

Schwanitz’s defection would be among the most important of such events in the cold war, the “Schwanitz affair” also having a significant impact on the world of movie/literature fiction. The idea of “secret Nazi wealth” (or gold) being hidden in the west by SD officers (rogue or not) for which the “heroes” would have to compete with the agents of foreign powers in order to get would become a somewhat popular type of story, for spy novels, but also movies and TV-series. The SD would overall be perceived rather negatively in western fiction though – whereas Soviet, French or British “spies” would be most often depicted as elegant, intelligent, subversive, the German “spies” would most often be shown as brute thugs, only their commanding officers or leaders being diabolical masterminds (with class, and often aristocratic behavior).

Ger_Nazi_gold_zpsdca2f876.jpg


Nazi gold bars hidden in crates would be the common object of pursuit in action series and movies

While Germany would be stereotyped as being ruthlessly efficient at everything it did, nothing going to waste and everything being used for a specific beneficial purpose, the truth was very far from that, as the country was suffering from a great deal of failed projects which contributed to its growing weakness. Paranoia of the cold war as well as the growth of Nazi philosophy presence in day-to-day administration would lead to a great deal of wealth and resources being spent on “ideological matters”, despite being ridiculously costly or outright damaging to the Reich, its people or its economy. While “vanity projects” such as the Volkshalle were obvious signs of this, there were many more, often being considered justified by the circumstances of the time. Fear of bombardment of cities (later nuclear war) had motivated the Reich into introducing the compulsory construction of shelters and bunkers under any new construction, private or public; newly constructed or expanded “Garden towns” would have complete underground “cities” beneath them, not only to house the above ground population but also to provide it with water, electricity, medical service, etc. German metropolises would purposely build metros very deep underground so as to make them useful as air-raid shelters. These things generated massive costs – but weren’t really doubted in making sense during those time, being thought of as necessary to secure the civilian population.

Ger_bunker_zpsd6e53766.png


Graphic depiction of a German war bunker, this planned to be inside a mountain

Demography was an important issue in Nazi philosophy as well, fear of shrinking birthrates leading to the Germans being “overwhelmed” by the faster-breeding non-Germans who would eventually overwhelm them causing the Nazi regime to introduce pro-birth policies very soon after coming to power. Schools, kindergartens, pediatric care units and other facilities were made in order to take care of children, as well as to relieve the “burden” of having children from families as much as possible, thus motivating people into having more of them. Mothers who had many children would be given state awards for “perfect motherhood”. Policies extended also into the material sphere. Marriage loans were part of the promotion of the family in Nazi Germany. Instituted in 1933, they were offered to newlywed couples in the form of vouchers for household goods, on the condition that the woman stopped working. One quarter of the loan was forgiven for each child, with four children allowing the family to be completely relieved of their debt. The success of this project would later lead it be reformed, only a fifth of the debt being forgiven (as the proposed family model changed from 2 + 4 to 2 + 5), the debt being forgiven only to a certain amount (annulment being dependent on party-membership, employment history, etc.), and only those being taken from state banks. The loans were partially paid for by a tax on unmarried people (called Ehestandshilfe), which would later become a regressive one, dependent on the amount of children had by either the mother and father, joint taxation of spouses also being allowed. While the goal of these taxes covering the debt relief was never achieved (and having to be covered from other sources), the pro-birthrate policies were never abandoned, even in the later decades – when unemployment had become a problem. Germany simply couldn’t provide the “30’s and 40’s baby boom” children enough workplaces, leading to lower wages and emigration – and social dissent. But it did manage to avoid the problem of “aging population” and increased strain on retirement funds, which the west European countries had to deal with. While Germany did not achieve the same level of demographic growth as its eastern neighbors did, it was also noticeably larger than the one its western neighbors had.

Ger_family_zps4c21cde0.jpg

Germany had been very supportive of multi-children families, propaganda calling it the “most patriotic of behaviours”

One important trait all fascist states shared – either due to Nazi philosophy, political views or Catholic faith – was a strict restriction on contraceptives. The discovery of the birth control pill in the USA, while hailed as a great invention in the west, “freeing women”, was considered a diabolic one in central Europe. Not only was it banned, its mere possession was criminalized. This was a heated issue among the fascist states, as the “new wave of feminism” which formed after the introduction of the birth control pill did reach Germany. Many women in the Reich were unsatisfied with the role the State gave to them – that of motherhood and “keeping the hearth and home”, with access to many workplaces being not allowed for them – and wanted its introduction so as to “better serve the Reich” (as only such proclamations allowed for any sort of “debate” in Germany to take place). The state would never budge though, and the ban on birth-control was strictly enforced, along with anti-abortion legislation, penalizing not only the doctor who would perform the operation, but the women who underwent it as well. The German feminist movement was thus very small and much more conservative than in any of the western states – even among the German women abroad the sentiment of “women having a different place in society than men” was strongly believed.

However, lack of contraceptives did not mean that the fascist states followed a chauvinist doctrine – their idea of “sexes being equal” simply meant that their position in the state/family was different, that they fulfilled different roles. It was among the smaller states – like Slovakia and the Baltic States – that the “feminist” movement in fascist states started, demanding greater participation of women in tasks and roles traditionally reserved for men. This mostly meant various ”intellectual” jobs and trades, such as doctors, lawyers, bankers. The demand for allowing women to attend universities more freely (including a “numerus clausus” guaranteeing women a fixed percentage of admittance places on various faculties) would eventually be accepted, though for slightly different reasons than expected – the education of women was meant as way of increasing the total number of people active in the work market, diversifying it – the smaller states with smaller economies and populations having significantly greater troubles at achieving even the basics of autarky, simply by lacking the manpower to fill all required positions. Activating women was thus a move to remedy the problem, at least partially. Still, the “feminist” movement never went as far as it did in the west, the lack of contraceptives being a key issue, as women were still much more tied to maternity. Office jobs or other non-physical ones such as secretaries or nurses were the most common ones, women being outright not allowed to take up positions in many “physical” occupation places, such as police, firefighters – or politics. Women very rarely managed to advance in the fascist hierarchy, be it the state or party one – and the ones that did, were most often the ones to advocate the “traditional” position of women, often simplified in the “Kinder, Kuche, Kirche” slogan – which was not thought as degrading, but as very much dignified, despite what many women felt about it.

Ger_Magda_zps7ecd3f9e.png


Magda Goebbels, despite her husband’s downfall, remained an important person in the “women movments” in the Reich, supporting the traditional position of women in the German family

Nazi Germany, just as the other fascist states were not impervious to changing social trends, especially during the détente era, when contact with the west was greater. But with the west growing visibly stronger and richer than the Reich, those changing social trends began to worry the Nazi leadership, which still considered the west as “decadent”, their growing wealth being deemed as “unsustainable”, achieved at the cost of racial bastardization and great social inequality. While some of the Nazi leadership seemed do realize the necessity of reforms and change to keep up with the west, many opposed that view, staying strong to the “traditional” Nazi beliefs – and amending them to keep up with the changes. With Hanke distancing himself from the NSDAP, the “neo-agrarian” faction in the NSDAP grew stronger, holding its own popularity campaigns both within the party itself and among the population. It was quick to take credit for the few successes Nazi Germany achieved, such as the massive housing and garden-cities projects which had virtually ended homelessness in the Reich, successes in sports (such as the 1972 Olympics in Toronto, where Germany dominated the games gathering a whopping 122 medals, 45 of which were gold), the moon landings, further space exploration works and other scientific achievements (Nobel Prize awards being depicted as a great success of the “German scientific mind”, very few years not having a German laureate). It had also used popular culture, media and propaganda very successfully, having a part in a great deal of historic movies, fantasy or science-fiction works, specifically made for the purpose of praising the “neo-agrarians”. While those Germans who did not have nazi beliefs were hardly swayed by it, those who did began move towards that camp of the NSDAP, growing in power.

Ger_sciencefiction_zpsdfcf9b88.png


German science fiction would often have a militaristic tone, depicting valiant Germans fighting monsters, rather than avoiding the fight or trying to “live and let live”.

Among the greater successes of the neo-agrarians, as well as one of the most important events in Nazi Germany, was the discovery of the “Second Book” of Adolf Hitler. Despite decades having passed since the death of the Fuhrer, his thoughts and ideology were still the basis of Nazi thought and philosophy, the book Mein Kampf being obligatory to read even for school children, and countless other scientific works being written as interpretations of the “great piece of literature”. Hitler’s many speeches were also gathered into tomes and taught, becoming the central core of Nazi beliefs (even though many were considered to be only attributed to Hitler, their original authors being unknown, or specifically not wanting to uncover themselves). While the “second book” was not completely unheard of, it was considered to be more of rumor than an actual piece of work, most often considered to be something like “a speech Hitler might have wrote but didn’t speak”. Many of the Alte Kampfer Nazis denied its existence, or at least claiming no knowledge of it, only a few a confirming its existence, but not being able to give any details. The pursuit for finding it motivated many “archives detectives”, as it was obvious its discovery would mean a great lot to the Nazi cause – and it did.

The “Zweites Buch” was discovered in 1961 by a complete accident in the basement of the Franz Eher Nachfolger GmbH publishing house, stored in a secured safe, not present in any manifesto. The curator of the basement archives, Frank Jorgen, was the one to eventually spill the secret the safe held, his story being a symbol of the loyalty of Nazi fanatics. The Second Book, being written already in 1928, was given to the editor Eher Nachfolger GmbH but not published, and – according to Jorgen – ordered not to be released or spoken about to anyone, this being confirmed by a hand-written note signed by Hitler (also present in the safe). The “secret book” was stored since then, the editor himself having died in an accident in 1935, leaving Jorgen as the only person who knew of the contents of the vault, and who kept it for himself. It was only in 1971 when he was eventually forced into retirement that he shared the information with his successor Adolf Schmidt, begging him not to reveal it unless specifically demanded to – per orders of the long-dead Fuhrer. Schmidt however could not leave such a thing ignored and quickly passed the information to his NSDAP superior, who seized the Eher-Verlag vault and its contents. Declaring the book to be uncovered (much to Jorgen’s dismay, who considered it to be against the will of the Fuhrer – he nevertheless being declared a hero for staying true to the Fuhrer’s orders for so long, being congratulated for it by Rudolf Hess who also officially released him from his oath as the “Deputy Fuhrer”) the neo-agrarians began to carefully publish (and edit) its contents to use as a weapon against their opponent, particularly Hanke. His actions and the words he said were contrasted with the “word of the Fuhrer”, published in Party newspapers and through other ways, so as to make him appear like his actions went contrary to the will of the Fuhrer. This had proven to be a great work of propaganda, especially since Hanke initially did not believe and questioned the authenticity of the manuscript. That was however confirmed by the Reichprasident Hess and science, the handwriting being unquestionably Hitlers’s, the date of the paper and ink also matching the timeframe. The true content of the book was kept hidden for a long time (much of what supposedly came from the book being the product of NSDAP propagandists, its published version from 1976 being more like “based on the Zweites buch” than its faithful re-writting), but it was still enough to undermine the position of Hanke who appeared to have drifted too far away .

GER_MEIN_KAMPF_zps64647016.png


Hitler's works would be translated into many languages and distributed across the world.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
Although Serbia had nominally regained statehood already in 1944, following the independence referenda held in former Yugoslavia on the question of officially dissolving the already non-existent state and creating new fascist ones in its place, that independence was a formal declaration only, Serbia not having even a foreign affairs service in place, supreme power over it being held by the German occupational government, the military administration controlling the country with extreme ruthlessness. 24 hours a day police hour, forced relocations, confiscations of all wealth and raw materials, forced labor, mass executions of civilians and still fighting guerillas – all these were daily occurrences in German-occupied Serbia. The Reich used the opportunity of the war to fix its hard financial situation at the time, creating a “plunder economy” situation in the Balkans, money and valuables from there being used to repay its debts, either in cash or goods. Outright killing dissenters or allowing them to flee the country was encouraged by Berlin, due to the philosophy of “less people means less troubles”. The brutality of the occupation brought Germany a lot of bad press, Serbia not being recognized by any countries other than the other fascist ones, Germany being a subject of economic sanctions for years – but it had also allowed it to go through the 40’s without a complete economic collapse.

GER_cattle_zps5a49ff07.jpg

Germans would loot a great deal of wealth from occupied territories, from works of art to simple livestock.

Soon after the capitulation of Yugoslavia, the Germans took over all the assets held by the defeated Yugoslav army – the speed of the invasion allowing it seize many supply depots and wagons which were undamaged. Bank accounts of all citizens were frozen, their vaults emptied. Raw materials and industrial products from manufacturing plants were also taken and shipped back to Germany. Entire factories were dismantled and given to German companies, the Serb workers themselves not uncommonly being brought with them as slave labor. Transportation systems such as roads, railways, airstrips were also taken over, managed and fully controlled by the Germans, checkpoints being established all over the country preventing free movement. Consumer goods production was reduced to almost nothing, the little that remained being meant to satisfy the German population – even food was rationed, any excesses being surrendered to Germany. Famine and disease followed the war, the people being completely humiliated and put low – among the Nazi circles, the Serbs were meant to be made “an example of” what the results of defying Germany would be – a sentiment especially popular among the Austrofascists, who saw it also as an opportunity to get back at Serbia for them humiliating Austria during the Great War. One of the first treaties Serbia was forced to sign was joining the Danube Treaty together with Hungary and Romania, practically surrendering control over the river to the Reich. To further the humiliation, Serbia would also be forced to accept the costs of the occupation – the German run tax service ruthlessly gathering “taxes” from the people to pay themselves for doing it. The program of total exploitation of not only Serbian, but the other Balkan states economies was created and run by the Four Year Plan office, with Karl Hanke, the future Chancellor being appointed as the effective dictator of them. With Goring’s blessing, he would over time gather much more power in the region, becoming closely acquainted with the many military leaders designated to Serbia – including even Heinrich Himmler, with whom he worked in Bosnia.

GER_checkpoints_zpsc7c88e04.jpg


Checkpoints manned by German soldiers would be the most visible sign of Serbia still not being an independent state.

Apart from violent occupation methods, Germany had been exercising control over Serbia also by other means. Early on, Germany had redrawn the Yugoslav borders in a fashion that did not totally ruin Serbia – as not only was it allowed to keep southern Vojwodina and western Macedonia despite pressures from Hungary and Bulgaria to be given those lands, but also given eastern Bosnia and the narrow strip of land known as the “Serbian corridor” – for the first time, giving Serbia direct access to sea rather than through Montenegro. Even more importantly, Serbia was also allowed to keep Kosovo – though that was a ploy to keep the Serbs in check. Berlin would often make suggestions that the future border alterations were a possibility, turning over Kosovo to Italy being a common one. Maintaining eastern Bosnia and the corridor also wasn’t set in stone. The fear that resistance might bring the Germans into punishing Serbia even more was what led many collaborators into working with the new order, especially seeing that the new state did in a way realize their dream of a “Greater Serbia” as an ethnically homogenous state.

It wasn’t until the mid 50’s that the Serbian government would actually start having the power to affect the situation in their country rather than simply following the orders of Berlin and acting as administrators. It was only Goring’s age and senility that allowed it to get more power through the decay of the military, which’s presence was lowered, and which had many of its long-serving leaders removed from the country, sent to retirement. Allowing Serbia to be given more freedoms, though on a short and tight leash, was eventually accepted, especially when some of the other fascist powers in the Balkans – such as Hungary and Bulgaria – started to try becoming more independent. Threatening them with Serbian revisionism would become a better tool of control with an actual Serb State being in existence. The first leader of Serbia (prior to 1956, the country’s official Head of State being the collective “State Council”) would be Nikola Kalabic, who would take the title of “Вођа” – “leader” – which would come to be the source of many jokes when associated with the work of Radoje Domanovic by the same title (Domanovic’s works being overall banned in Serbia). His authority would be limited only by the German authorities, as uniquely for the fascist powers, the Chetnik movement did not become a political party – but became an exclusive organizations, membership having to be earned, most commonly through military service. Serbia wouldn’t even re-establish a parliament, or any other form of a “legislative branch”, the power to create laws being held solely by the Вођа.

SER_Nikola_zpsfc360082.jpg

Nikola Kalabic, the first Вођа of Serbia

The situation in Serbia had become somewhat better in the 60’s, when the détente had led to many of the remaining offices of the occupational government to be replaced with a civic administration by the Chetnik government, which until that point had been just an collaborationist organization, working with the Germans but having no real power – only some means of influencing the occupational authorities. Germany had been continuously using the Chetniks in some areas of administration – such as allowing them to establish the “Green Police” as an auxiliary force similar to a “town watch”, introduce them as mayors and bourgmeisters of small towns and villages, create a Serbian tax service to better finance the occupation and other. While the Chetniks were initially identified as a monarchist, Serb-nationalist organization, with time the term began to change its meaning, becoming a general term for “willing, ideological collaborators”, also used in other languages. The organization had undergone a massive purge in the late 40’s, a few years after the Yugoslav war, when many of its potential followers, and “fellow travelers” had revealed themselves, and when the German authority sought to eliminate all those they deemed untrustworthy in the long term. This mostly meant the conservative old guard and the monarchists who originally formed the group – or groups, as many, both anti-German and pro-German forces would technically call themselves “Chetniks” - the term eventually sticking to the collaborators rather than the resistance. Even many of the Serbian fascists shared their fate, mostly those who “lobbied” for stronger association with Italy, up to which they looked for support (Mussolini being considered the one who pushed through the creation of the “Serbian corridor” to the Adriatic and praised by some of the Chetniks for it, though that was only achieved in return for massive benefits for Italy in the area; while Il Duce believed Italian control over Albania, Montenegro and Italian businesses owning much land in the corridor would eventually lead to Italy controlling Serb Mediterranean trade, that never happened as German rule tied Serbia firmly with the German economy). It didn’t help that King Peter II officially denounced them and condemned collaborating with the Germans in such manner, thus destroying the ties between the King and the monarchists who wanted to restore Serbia as a Kingdom, even if to be ruled by a regent (most favorably an Italian one). The Chetniks were thus reduced to a group of the most pro-German and most pro-Nazi Serbs, becoming ultimately one of the governments most “detached” from its population in the world.

SER_Green_police_zpsd16d0891.jpg


German officers and instructors would take an active part in the training and preparation of new Serbian forces.

The “liberalization” which came after statehood, and later during the period of détente, was relative. While it seemed as a large step forward for the Serb people at the time, Serbia’s regime was one of the most fanatically involved in the idea of National Socialism, using most totalitarian means of control and repressions. It was commonly said that “Serbia achieved in the 60’s what Germany achieved in the 30’s” – meaning that the degree of “ideologization” of the state and state terror in the 60’s, was as large as in Hitler’s Germany. Seeing that since those times the totalitarian nature of the fascist regimes in central Europe had weakened compared to what it was before, Serbia looked terribly even in comparison to them. Another factor that brought humongous dissatisfaction of the population was the fact that unlike almost all of those regimes, in Serbia fascism came as a result of a foreign invasion and did not have much domestic popularity. For the Serbs, the Chetnik government was just a continuation of the occupation, a “puppet government” in every way. This created an impossible situation, where all concessions or answered pleads by the Germans would be seen as a success of “the people”, and not the government, whereas every type of restriction would be attributed to the fascist powers. With the leadership being so detached from the rest of the country, to the point where they would have their own closed-off districts for themselves and not even bothering introducing a legislator-parliamentary body to give a token display of “looking after the people”, it operated on the basis of being constantly hated by its subjects – but doing “what had to be done for the good of the volk”, the volk being obviously more important than even every one of its members together.

Such a situation led to the perception of the past being warped, especially with official propaganda being crude and ineffective – people acting and thinking contrary to what it said even out of simple spite. Serbian education depicted the former Kingdom as a dystopic entity, a multi-ethnic hell-hole, ruled by a despotic, corrupt monarch acting as the agent of international Jewry, whose purpose was terminating Serbian culture and people, “diversifying” the population through mix-breeding and cultural degeneration into a generic “South Slav” people, denying them their heritage and a future of their own. The popular opinion about the fallen kingdom was however the opposite – as it was viewed as a great country, one flowing with milk and honey until the arrival of the Germans. This Yugoslavia of the past was fondly remembered by the older people who lived in it, both due to simple nostalgia of the times of their youth, as well as because despite its flaws, it was still a better place to live than what came after. This vision of a peaceful state with a benevolent monarch, where different peoples lived in harmony and prosperity was transferred to the next generation of Serbians, who would come to idealize it without knowing it; actual historic knowledge being scarce, and any vices it may have had that were spoken about where treated as “false nazi propaganda”.

SER_propaganda_zpsbcdf1fcf.jpg


“Only Germany can save us from capitalism and Jewry” – Serbo-German propaganda wasn’t effective at winning the hearts of the people

This pro-Yugoslav sentiment went hand in hand with pro-democratic, as well as pro-monarchist ones. The latter occurred in a great part thanks to the works of the exiled King Pavel II and his son, Alexander II (known officially as Alexander Karadjordjevic ). After his escape from Yugoslavia during the war, King Pavel managed to not only obtain safety in France, but also preserve the vestiges of statehood, by keeping the insignia of royal power, re-create a government in exile, form a “Yugoslav Army in exile” in France and most importantly – prevent the recognition of the “independent Serbia” in favor of the west officially recognizing him as the legitimate head of state and the representative of the Yugoslavia/Serbia. The part of his family wealth he managed to keep, coupled with donations from other crowned heads of states in Europe, allowed him to maintain financial independence which he used to preserve the Yugoslav monarchy – in spirit, as well as in symbolism. The idea that “Serbia wasn’t dead yet” was a powerful one, the matter of the legitimacy of the Serbian state being not uncommonly brought up in the Palace of Nations in Geneva, where Pavel, and later his successor Alexander would be a somewhat common guest.

Alexander II continued his father’s work remaining the head of the house of Karadjordjevic as well as a symbol of Serbian spirit and pursuit of future independence. Whereas Pavel was able to move around the elite and the politicians of Europe and the world, spreading his influence and trying to preserve Serbian non-recognition as well as anti-German feelings, Alexander took a different approach, looking to unite the Serbian diaspora, empower it, keep its spirits up and willingness to keep up the struggle against the fascists. Pavel and Alexander were capable of convincing many western universities to create “Yugoslav Studies” courses, or even entire faculty dedicated to Serbia –financed either from their own private wealth, or from state/university donations. Alexander was a common guest of them, and an aid, for many anti-fascist movements, especially the youth ones. Scholarships for Serbian youth, aid for Serbian emigrants, works on creating collections of Serbian art in museums and galleries, taking action in anti-fascist campaigns and movements – those were all “grassroot organic work” meant to undermine German efforts at dominating Serbia, which was somewhat effective. It wasn’t until 1960 that the State of Serbia obtained international recognition with the recognition of Pavel’s government in exile being withdrawn and even after that he maintained enough influence to keep that government in existence, even with the “Yugoslav Army” being subjected to it – the latter’s status being a matter of both internal dispute within the French parliament and government (the question being if the existence of such a military organization would be even legal, and if so, if it should be allowed to exist on French soil), as well as between France and Germany with Serbia . But the greatest achievement of all was actually managing to take control of the Serbian emigration from Yugoslavia, both the one coming right after the war, in the following decades and the next generations of them. Influence in France, and Paris specifically had allowed the French capital to become the center of Serbian culture, to the point where its 20th arrondissement would become known as “Little Belgrade” due to the sheer amount of Serbian emigrants there – around 150.000 by 1980. Despite typical French policies of “frenchyfying” immigrants, “Little Belgrade” would be allowed to have some unofficial autonomy, including for example schools teaching Serbian language – though at the cost of becoming also known as the “Serb ghetto”, as the living conditions there were also noticeably below that of the rest of Paris. It would also become a shelter for some of the most dangerous criminal organizations of France, and in fact all of western Europe, the birthplace of the infamous “Serbian mob”. The community there would however be very well organized and loyal to each other, a side effect of its isolation.

SER_AleksandarKaradjordjevic_zpsc9cc08d4.jpg

King Alexander II, the Crown Prince of Yugoslavia (and Serbia)

Joining the military was about the only way for the common man in Serbia to make a career, 5 year military service being compulsory, finishing which with a proper “mark” giving the chance of joining the Chetnik organization. Military service was thus a very important part of life of Serbians, relations and connections made then significantly affecting their future. The military was the power base of the Chetniks, who honestly believed in it being the greatest way of indoctrination. Results were mixed, with most people quickly learning to look through propaganda, bowing to and following the leaders being just a thing necessary for securing a better future. The bonds of loyalty between those forced to serve became stronger than those tying them to their leaders, resulting in the military also being subject to intense scrutiny of secret police and German authorities – the Serbian fascist truly having no one they could completely trust in running the country, as they would eventually learn.

The unsustainability of such a situation was noticed by some of the Reich leaders, including Karl Hanke. While many hard-head Nazis did not believe in the possibility in letting the “unruly” Serbs to be left to their own devices, or for the Chetniks to be able to properly run and control it without constant German assistance, some of the moderates who found themselves in power during the détente did try to use the opportunity to introduce reforms, replacing their power maintaining which was proving costly with the locals. In 1971, Serbia would form its National Assembly (the Chetniks being the only ones allowed to be representatives). In 1973, a general amnesty would be declared for much of the political criminals, including the communist partisans arrested in the post-Yugoslav War period, many of whom were given life sentences. Treaties with Italy, Hungary and Bulgaria would be signed guaranteeing and mutually accepting existing borders. The 70’s would also see the introduction of new agricultural techniques brought by the Green Revolution, as well as the beginning of the construction of numerous industrial complexes. While censorship would not be any weaker, the presence of contraband material, smuggled from other fascist states increased. The country was being brought to a state of “normalcy”, a relative one for fascist states, but nevertheless a better one that was in the past. The changes occurred rather fast, and combined with the lowered presence of Germany in the everyday life of Serbs – Wehrmacht soldiers being more confined to their bases rather than patrolling the streets, present at road checkpoints or railway stations, German officers being seen in workplaces – the hope that the country could have a brighter future was renewed, also giving the people the will to start to dissent.

SER_halls_zps16d595aa.jpg


Easter sale at the Belgrade “market hall”. Occasions such as holidays and national days were one of few when food and other goods could be stockpiled for later.

The opportunity for this came in 1977, when the first major demonstration in Serbia took place, previous laws on public gatherings strongly prohibiting them, protest taking the form of occupying workplaces, or flight to the countryside or the woods to join the partisans. Liberalization created the hope that the government could be negotiated with and would have to answer to popular demands when faced with a force strong enough. German presence being significantly less visible strengthened the sense of power the people had, or rather, the power the Chetniks didn’t have. The crisis began in April, sparked by a governmental declaration of raising food prices . Despite rationing having ended almost two decades earlier, and memory of famine and food shortages was still alive in the memories of the people. The period of détente emboldened to start demanding more for themselves, the “liberalization” being treated as a “success” of their past “passive resistance”, which’s gains couldn’t now be given up, and a sign of proof that more was possible to gain. The call “food for the people” was what rallied the public, bringing the inhabitants of Belgrade to the streets., creating a demonstration of angry workers, quickly joined by others – students, veterans, the intelligentsia. Despite originating as a simple demand for keeping food prices at the current level, it’s character quickly changed, as the very demands all people held but didn’t speak out began appearing on hastily made signs – elections, withdrawal of German forces, better healthcare, higher wages. The crowd gathered around 10.000 people, and while not much compared to the demonstrations in other countries of central Europe dealt with, it was still a lot for the Chetnik government, not used to such large upheavals, until then not forced into having to deal with such masses. Panic erupted in the offices, in part due to the false estimates of the crowds strength, the report that landed on the desk of the Вођа stating 180.000 (possibly a typo, but possibly the result of incompetent administration). The Chetniks ordered an overkill response, sending in special mechanized units of riot police to clear the streets and destroy the demonstration, live-fire ammunition being issued to disperse the crowds. But despite the order being to shoot, it was not executed, a “street truce” between the demonstrators and the police being reached, with the police not shooting and the crowd only moving to designated areas, some of the policemen even joining the manifestation, despite orders being given to treat them as deserters and deal with accordingly, these were not executed either. Discipline within the police collapsed.

SER_police_zps88e8998b.jpg


Serbian police “keeping order” on the streets.

Panic grew in the governmental spheres, on the second day of the demonstration ordinary military units being called into Belgrade to roll through the streets with tanks if necessary. And again discipline collapsed. The Army, built according to German standards and regulations had a cadre of loyal high-ranking officers, but the lower rank soldiers were less eager to follow orders demanding them to shoot at their own countrymen. Since the military units sent to Belgrade were mstly made up from people from the city, it wasn’t unusual for some lowly grunt or their NCO to recognize old friends and neighbors in the groups of people they were supposed to quell. Personal connections and relations between “the authorities” and “the people” had proven stronger than the bonds of “imposed loyalty” to regime unworthy of it. Forced oaths were abandoned, shocking the colonels and majors in staff quarters, who learnt of the massive disobedience, the units they “commanded” refusing to follow orders, or simply turning their radios off, in the worst case outright turning against them. News of the military losing control over the situation reached the ministry of defence and internal affairs, the government now believing they were facing a revolution. With that, they chose to evacuate from the capital in helicopters, moving to the nearest safe location – the German Army base in Batajnica.

SER_army_zpsa2351015.jpg

SER_army_zpse527a9cd.jpg


Familiarity between the soldiers and the people was one of the main factors that prevented blood being spilled by the Serbian Army

What exactly it was that happened after the hasty (and undercover, as knowledge of the Chetnik leadership leaving Belgrade remained a secret) evacuation of the Serbian government would remain shrouded in mystery, despite future investigations of the events, attempts at bringing the responsible to justice. Exactly how well Berlin was informed about the situation in Belgrade was uncertain, as very little written paperwork would be discovered; witnesses claiming, and that being the most common theory, that the Serbian leadership remained in contact not with the Reich Chancellery, but through its Ministry of Defence with the OKW, both from Belgrade and the base in Batajnica OKW in turn reported to the Chancellor, though the exact nature of the reports (which were oral) would be debated. While some would say they were detailed and Hanke was well aware of everything what went on, others stated the reports being blurry and confusing, the Chancellor giving equally vague orders demanding more specific reports. It would be those “vague” orders that would become the core of the issue, together with the reasons of them being given out (whether done on purpose, as a result of misinformation, or if they were misinterpreted by others – accidently or on purpose, either in the OKW or in Batajnica. In effect, Heinz Kessler, the commander of the German Army in Serbia, ordered the Wehrmacht to enter Belgrade, German tanks rolling into the streets of the capital, soldiers being ordered to pacify the city and authorized to use lethal force. The crackdown ended up with a massacre, as not only were Serbian civilians fired upon, but so was the Serbian police and military units. Who exactly gave the order to shoot, why, and who could have stopped it, and whether it was the Germans or the Chetniks – those were questions the Serbian population wanted answered very quickly. It would be only decades later that more clear vision of the events would form – Hanke, pointed out as the responsible one and made into a scapegoat immediately afterwards by the Serbs would sometime later have his degree of responsibility reduced, when facts came to light that it was more the German military and the politicians in the OKW that sought a forceful resolution, and used the decisions given out by Hanke to their own ends. Even later though, Hanke would once again be blamed for the atrocity, as not only did he not stop the massacre when in it was ongoing (and it was proven he had learnt of that) but he apparently did allow for lethal force to be used even prior to the first shootings. Also, the Chatniks themselves weren’t spared, though who of them accepted to use force out of their belief, who did so as “a necessity” and who opposed it would be subject to long disputes (and eventually, court trials). The Belgrade pacification remained an incredibly controversial matter in both Serbia and Germany, and it also had great repercussions.

SER_tanks_zps246cfa68.jpg


Tanks in Belgrade, hatches being closed due to fear of sniper fire.

The pacification lasted two days. On the first, the crowds were dispersed, people ordered to remain at home, the German military patrolling the streets – the city looking as if under occupation. With some of the police and military choosing to fight rather than surrender, pockets of resistance formed, Wehrmacht soldiers being fired upon from buildings, the second day being a clean up of those small armed cells. The massacre had led to around 800 civilians and 200 Serbian police/military servicemen being killed. German casualties counted around 30. The illusion of possible German-Serbian coexistence, or “Nazi/Chetnik benevolence” was shattered, the chetnik government completely discredited. Upon their return from Batajnica martial law was imposed on the area of the entire country to prevent a “civil war” – which led to the deaths of another few dozen people, as workers occupying factories did not abandon them and were removed with the use of lethal force. Massive arrests followed, including much of the Serbian leadership itself, executions of those who allowed for the situation to develop to such a point – and staged trials for those who supposedly gave the orders to shoot (the Serbian government seeking to prove to the people that they were in control of the German military in Serbia – which was considered to be safer than admitting they did nothing and could do nothing to stop it, as that would prove them being mere puppets).

SER_Belgrade_zps30ef9b73.jpg


Picture of the massacre in Belgrade

The events also affected Berlin. International anger struck Germany badly, and though the Reich answered that its actions were carried out with the consent and at the wish of the “legitimate Serbian government”, few bought it. With criticism over its performance in Angola and Mozambique being present too, the economic situation worsening, domestic tensions and negative opinions within both the NSDAP and the population of Hanke’s rule rising – the Belgrade pacification was the final straw that broke his position. Accused of being incapable of controlling central Europe, his own military, responsible for “hundreds of deaths of allies” as well as all the other failings Germany had been going through – a notion was filed for his dismissal, by Rudolf Hess himself to give more weight to it. When presented with it almost in the form of an ultimatum – accepting it being grounds for a retirement complete with some of his privileges, refusal probably leading to a trial at best – Hanke gave up and withdrew. Leaving office in shame and without state honors, his end would also mark the end of the détente – as his successor, Adolf von Thadden of the much more radical “neo-agrarian” wing wasted little time in removing the remaining “Alte Kampfer” and Hanke’s backers from power, reigniting the cold war, replacing milder rhetoric once again with threats, declarations of power and actions of brinksmanship.

GER_Thadden_zps055a5638.jpg


Adolf von Thadden, Chancellor of the German Reich. He would be the first of the Nazi Chancellors to wear a suit rather than the typical military uniform used by his predecessors
 

Kongzilla

Banned
Among the larger problems the German Reich faced due to its self-imposed policy of pursuing autarky was the approaching energy crisis. Since the XIXth century Germany had been among the largest producers of coal in the world, which fueled it’s economy. Coal was the source of power of the huge majority of Germany’s power plants, and such a situation was kept due to the long standing belief that the deposits in the Ruhr and Silesia were sufficient to last “forever” - and even if not for that long, then for “long enough”. The necessity of diversification was not seen, as coal did allow Germany to keep a complete independence on electrical energy, being even one of its main export products. Even in the second half of the XXth century when other countries started moving towards oil and natural gas for power generation - France, the UK, Italy even - Germany remained adamant about sticking to coal.

GER_Frimmersdorf_zpsb43f9215.png


Frimmersdorf coal power plant, 1963.

The shortsightedness of such a policy was first pointed out already in the late 50’s by a number of industrialists, but those warnings were laid on deaf ears. In the early 60’s however, statistics were too clear to simply ignore or blame on bad seasons - the increase of German coal production was below the growth of its coal consumption, and falling. Estimates had shown that Germany would be facing a shortage of coal already in the 70’s, when consumption would exceed production, forcing Germany into taking unwanted steps - cutting down consumption from some areas, importing coal or stopping exports. The main reason for this was Germany’s continued population growth, coupled with a constant growth in energy consumption by the more and more urban society. Though Germany was already behind western neighbours in terms of average wealth, it was still before its eastern ones, the times of Hanke bringing hope to them that they had a chance to “catch up” with Germany – a hope now taken away. Whereas the average German would have his income be at a level of approximately 75% of that of a Frenchmen, the Czechs, Hungarians, Poles, Slovaks, etc. would wary from around that level (circa 70% for Hungary, Slovakia and Czechia) down to a measly 40% for countries like Serbia or Lithuania. Their relative strength and size of their economies came from their continuously growing population – Germans being the second European nation to exceed a population of 100 million in 1969, exceeding 103 million in 1980; Italy at the time exceeding 58 million and Poland exceeding 54 million, while the UK only held a little over 56 million and France – 54 (though the latter also having an over 20 million strong population in Algeria, while the former provided a great number of passports and settlement permits without actual citizenship to the many peoples of the BCoN). No other European country could however compare to the USSR, which by 1985 crossed the threshold of 300 million and was the third most populous country in the world, after China and India – though also significantly poorer than even the fascist countries, the people living even its more developed areas in Europe rarely making it beyond around 50% of the wealth of the west.

GER_pop_1980_zps1a19d23c.png


League of Nations estimates of European countries population in 1980 (France including overseas territories)

To combat the threat, steps needed to be taken. The 4-year-plans for 1968-1972 and 1972-1976 both envisioned the spectre of coal shortage being removed through a number of means. Coal plants were to increase their efficiency reducing waste of resources and heat; power lines infrastructure was to be greatly modernized; biofuel components were to be added to use in power plants, to reduce coal consumption. Numerous coal mines were started in areas where deposits were known to exist, but where mining was deemed to be cost-inefficient. Germany would also start to invest significant money into both research, and construction, of renewable energy sources, such as wind and hydro-electrical power plants, later also nuclear power - as uranium deposits were discovered in both Pomerania and the Sudetenland, the possibility of nuclear power replacing coal in the nearby future being seriously predicted.

But the effects of those moves were below expectations. Inefficiency and bad management took its toll, as did excessive optimism - as most of the above ideas could at best only delay the inevitable shortage. The new small and mid-size mines meant to support the local grid of the Gaue ended up as spectacular failures, very few even managing to cover the costs of their erection, their total production being only a small addition. While investments into both wind farms and mid-size hydro-damns did provide a non-inconsequential amount of power, Germany’s landscape prevented their introduction as the basis of a national power grid, overall becoming responsible for only a few percent of Germany’s power generation. It was only nuclear power that provided a real boost, but its large costs prevented a full-scale conversion from coal to uranium and its benefits only became obvious in the mid and late 70’s, when Germany was already approaching the line of still maintained self-sufficiency. Germany did reduce the amount of coal spent on converting it into synthetic fuel (a humongous, ongoing program meant to grant Germany self-sufficiency on oil, never managing to even come close) from 10% of annual production to 2%, covering it with increased imports from Italy and the UAS. Exports of coal have fallen too, Germany already earlier having been beat out of many markets by competition from the USSR, USA, and the British Commonwealth. Coal still remained its important export for the states of central Europe, most of which were completely incapable of covering their demand with domestic production, being forced to buy German (some trying to end that dependency by looking towards Italy and turning to natural gas and oil - the first gas pipeline from northern Italy through Croatia to Hungary being laid down in 1976.

GER_Sasol_zps0365fa7c.jpg


IG Farben synthetic fuel production facility. Germany produced a significant amount of its fuel meant for the civilian market from coal conversion, pioneering and perfecting the Fischer-Tropsch process.

One point of exception remained though - Poland. Having annexed much of the resource-rich areas of Upper Silesia in the 20’s, since then Poland has grown in importance on the global coal market, quickly becoming one of the largest producers of it in Europe, and even the world. Like Germany, coal was the basis for its power grid, however due to being less industrialized and electrified, as well as having earlier invested into hydro-power, it still was far from fearing shortage. Poland even overtook Germany as central Europe’s largest exporter of coal in 1973 and not showing signs of that stopping, its coal mines being kept up-to-date modernized (as Uppers Silesia was seriously “pampered” by the fascists in Warsaw, for the purpose of making sure the local population would not turn to Germany in search of “prosperity”, which could take the form of “Upper Silesian reunification”). Throughout the decades, coal remained a strategic export of Poland, and though its importance shrank due to Poland’s general industrialization, it nevertheless remained an important resource, sales of which (primarily to Scandinavia) provided Poland with significant income.

POL_Matylda_zps3ad3e97c.jpg


Entry gate to the “Matylda” coal mine in Kattowitz

With von Thadden’s rise to power came a new rhetoric, one which blamed Hanke for much of Germany’s difficulties, along with criticism for his foreign policy approach, which gave more freedom to Germany’s eastern neighbors - something the neo-agrarians didn’t think highly of. Many though that loosening the leash was a bad move that overall weakened Germany, lowering its standing. Pressuring them into falling more in line and under the boot of Germany, so as to seize their natural wealth and bringing them back down to agricultural economies supplying only basic goods for industrialized Germany, which in turn was to act as the redistributor of advanced and machine goods among the Axis states, was what many neo-agrarians envisioned – the dreamt of “lebensraum” taking a yet new form, now seen as a “resource pool” to be extracted by the local population and shipped back to Germany, which in turn would supply them in what it considered they needed, keeping them dependent on the Reich. Germany already had such a de-facto monopoly on many products, the local variants and production of the same goods being restricted in numbers and export, despite Hanke’s liberalization policies. Now under von Thadden, that was to be reversed. Coal was what provided all of central Europe with electric energy, Germany for a long time supplying its allies with it, thus also keeping control of their power source, Poland the only real competition for it. Now, Germany sought to end that competition and extend its dominance.

GER_Thadden_zps5cb65074.jpg


Chancellor von Thadden giving his speech to coal miners in Essen, 1977

In 1977, on the annual OMEWZE summit in Venice, a new treaty was suggested by Germany regarding the “collaboration in redistribution” of strategic resources within the countries of the OMEWZE, which demanded signatories to prioritize the sales of certain resources to others, and do so at a fixed price, established by the OMEWZE. Every signatory was to declare their annual expected demand which combined were to be covered by the combined production of all members. Only excess production was to be allowed to be used freely by its producers. The treaty was meant to guarantee Germany a steady supply of all needed products, as it would be free to declare the need for humongous amounts of them, while also forcing other countries which happened to have excess production to their own needs to sell it to Germany at a fixed price – even below the market one. While the list noticeably lacked these type of goods Germany produced in excess (leaving it free to sell them at both the global and axis market for whatever price it wanted), it included those Germany was lacking and others produced beyond their demand. The terms of the treaties also prioritized to which countries any deficit goods were meant to go, depending on their “final use” – again, placing Germany in the lead place. The list did include coal, despite Germany still being able to cover its demand with domestic production, but at that point already knew the situation wouldn’t last. In this area, it was dramatically aimed against Poland which remained the sole “export capable” producer, and under the terms of the treaty, would have to start selling it at prices well below those it got from sales at the global market, particularly to Scandinavia. Obviously it opposed such terms, but found itself surrounded by proponents of them, as almost all other countries looked towards them as a means of satisfying also their own energy needs at Poland’s expense. Under significant pressure from the axis states, as well as with the hopes of the terms of the treaty being able to provide it with some of its own needs, it accepted – albeit almost immediately starting to undermine it for its own benefit. Declared coal production statistics froze, or were downright reduced, while its own declared demand grew incredibly. Mined coal “miraculously” turned into “thick-grain culm” just after being brought to the surface, and a series of other things, not covered by the treaty, so as to allow it to be freely exported. As foreign-owned companies were also exempted from these type of obligations, Polish embassy workers working abroad would create fictional companies in the countries hosting them and later buying stakes in the Polish mines, thus using another loophole. These type of practices were quickly copied by other fascist states in these areas where they deemed them going against their interests, the treaty turning out to be increasingly useless even before it was managed to be properly implemented.

GER_Veniceconference_zps727fde90.jpg


The meeting of the heads of states of the axis powers in Venice.

This frustrated Berlin which demanded such obvious obstructions to be put to a stop by all. Germany found out however that its allies were not willing to just give up the freedom they managed to obtain in the past decade and return to Goring-era submission. German was now getting the worst of two worlds – both the dislike for being forceful and bullying, and the lack of cooperation and gratitude. The new leadership could not stand such a challenge to German authority to be unanswered and had thus began bringing out its heavier artillery – mobilizing the German minorities in the east to begin demonstrations and blockades as well as proclaiming being persecuted by their overlords, stopping shipments of important German goods to those countries, as well as refusing to buy the ones they made; a side effect of Hanke-era liberalization being Germany becoming not only the largest buyer of industrial goods from central European countries, but also often the only one – their obsolete factories not making things possible to be sold on the global market, and sales to fascist states being difficult due to the competition of domestic made goods, which were already given preference. The Baltic states, with their non-diversified economies had felt this type of pressure the most, and were also the first in line to fall in line (Lithuania being among the largest supporters of the neo-agrarian movement even earlier). Poland had become once again the main focus of German foreign politics in central Europe, being the main power of opposition to “the German boot” – creating very dangerous tension between the two. German sense of superiority and “questioned dominance” clashed with Polish “positive nationalism”, which required it to prove itself not any worse than the other “true European powers”.

GER_stamp_zps90f0b681.jpg


Anti-polish poster from Upper Silesia – “The white eagle must go up in the air!”

The Polish-German conflict over illegal coal exports led to what was later called the “Third Danzig Crisis”, which nominally started on September the 1st 1980. The German Chancellery issued an ultimatum to Warsaw informing them that further breaches of the OMEWZE treaties would not be tolerated and continued exports would be stopped, even with the use of force. On the same day, together with the ultimatum, Germany closed its borders with Poland, denying Polish goods transport to their destinations, chocking its trade. Poland was given three days to stop it ships and trains, unload the coal from them and annul any existing trade agreements on selling it with third parties outside the OMEWZE. Poland refused to abide.

On September the 4th warning shots were fired on the Polish transport ship “ORP Paladyn”, which was leaving the harbor of Gdynia in the gulf of Danzig. Messages were sent to the captain to return to port, or be fired upon. After contacting Warsaw and being given clear orders from the Ministry of Marine Economy to keep course, the ship continued on and was hit by German artillery, sinking in a manner of minutes. 16 sailors died, the remaining crew managing to be rescued. This act terrified the remaining ships in Gdynia, now too afraid to leave, Germany declared the act to be perfectly legal under marine law, due to the ship ”entering German territorial waters”, the German Reich now claiming the rights to the parts of the Gulf of Danzig through which Polish ships travelled, denying them exit. Pressures on Poland grew as other fascist states joined the anti-polish blockade - Lithuania, Czechia, Slovakia, Romania, eventually even Latvia refusing to allow Polish transports (and after a few days, even people) to pass through. Hungary remained the only state not to join the blockade, though its act was meaningless, as the puppet governments in Serbia and Croatia would too refuse to accept trains loaded with Polish goods.

GER_Danzig_gun_zpsbc192363.jpg


German naval defences on the shores of Danzig

Berlin expected Warsaw to fold in a matter of days, the imposed blockade effectively cutting it off from exporting anything, as Poland had little to no infrastructure to move goods to the USSR - military necessity and paranoia on both sides leading both of them for example to keep only one operational “normal gauge to broad gauge” conversion platform facility. Without exports, the Polish economy was expected to collapse quickly, especially since the ultimatum was - in the eyes of Berlin - relatively benign. That however did not happen, as fascist ideology turned on its greatest supporter. Poland was following the economic ideas of autarky quite well, managing to achieve self-sufficiency in food, water and electricity and a number of other strategic resources at least a decade earlier (although in most cases it was more of a theoretical possibility coming from statistics of production, Poland still being an importer of many of the goods it itself produced). With stockpiles being
full before the upcoming winter, Warsaw did not panic, but attempted to adapt to the situation as well as it could.

Martial law in Poland was declared on September the 5th, when knowledge of the blockade became commonplace and crowds gathered before stores to buy out remaining products. The military and police entered the streets to remove the crowds, but also entered the countryside blocking transportation - a great deal of people attempting to supply themselves in food from the farmers, who were more than willing to sell it to them rather than the state agricultural agency. Military control was introduced into other facilities, such as power plants, water purification plants, coal mines, gasoline storehouses etc. Food became rationed. Electricity was turned off during nighttime for conservation of resources. The blockade led to massive unemployment as manufacturing plants and trade companies found themselves with nothing to do (though by Presidential decree sacking people due to the crisis was banned; rather they were to be given paid time off). Street crime was low due to 24h police hour, a number of criminal activities saw a surge, such as smuggle and prostitution. One side effect of the crisis would also become a temporary “baby boom” in nine months after it. While order was kept, famine and outbreak of disease prevented, those were still means meant to put back the inevitable lack of first and second-need products, not to resolve the situation. Germany was well capable of maintaining the blockade with little ill-effect other than a certain degree of humiliation of “it taking so long”. Poland was hypothetically able to keep the population fed, hydrated (drunk even, as its spirit industry was capable of covering domestic demand many times over), with access to running water and electricity – but not much else, as gasoline shortage would eventually stop mechanized transportation and de facto unemployment would grow due to the workers having literally nothing to work on. Mobilizing reservists and sending them to the streets to “keep order” has brought mixed results, more military on the streets stressing the population, the soldiers themselves calling into question what they were doing.

POL_martial-law-poland-1981_23_zpsae49ab2e.jpg


Streets of Warsaw during the winter martial law

The question how long the situation could have went on would not be answered though, as German patience ran out more quickly, especially with complaints from the German minority in Poland coming in. The hypothetical scenario, which was around since Hitler’s era, of a “limited intervention” in Pomeralia that would not lead to a major Polish-German war was dusted off and given serious thought – even the possibility of a simultaneous Soviet response in eastern Poland considered an “acceptable loss” for having Poland brought down. With Germany continuously demanding that Poland fulfill all its obligations towards its German minority despite shortages, while keeping its own population in a state of anxiety, official news going down to describing the situation of the Germans in Poland as “we are all right for now, but we are scared, please help us” – the grounds for an intervention were made – domestic support assured, the made up reason being Poland not living up to its obligations, Germany having to act in the minorities protection. On April 24 1981 another ultimatum was sent to Warsaw, informing it of Germany’s intent to move into Pomeralia within 24 hours unless Poland accept former, as well as freshly presented additional demands, including German work inspectors in Polish facilities, German managers at the boards of major Polish state-owned businesses, tax exemptions and other privileges for both the Volksdeutsche and Reichsdeutsche in Poland and others. The ultimatum was also supported by Lithuania which threatened to enter Vilinus should the Poles refuse (Kaunas being promised that already earlier). With the Polish army incapable of even thinking about any defence, much less retaliatory action, Warsaw eventually folded.

The Polish capitulation had come to “restore order” in the Axis states, being just a beginning for von Thadden’s larger campaign of restoring dominance and control over central Europe. The bloc of countries which acted the most against that was broken, as Poland was out of the picture and Italy had not come to its aid this time – no other power having the strength to assert itself before the Reich. The OMEWZE would become a tool of increasing control, 1982 being the year when the “Transfermark” was introduced as the coin of account meant to be used for intra-fascist state trade and financial settlements – its exchange rate relative to other currencies being determined by the German-dominated board of the OMEWZE – giving Germany further tools of controlling all central-European commerce. Germany forced other countries to artificially devalue their currencies, lower the interest rates of the non-German bank accounts and inflated others currencies by seizing the rights to mint them, which it used to print “paper value money”. The goal of establishing Germany as the “bastion of stability” in central Europe, have the people there flock to German banks and institutions rather than their national ones by offering better terms solely due to artificial machinations was being pushed through ruthlessly. Those means would eventually come to bring lead all of them to economic and social crises, furthered by a spike in anti-German sentiments – boycotts of German goods and workers spontaneously occurring. These type of attacks would force the local authorities to act against them, even using police to force demonstrators marching towards German quarters or villages of the streets - contributing to the governments loss of popularity, as they were universally seen as “protecting the Germans rather than us”. But much like expected, benefits coming from the submission of the central European countries came at the price of their populations ire, followed by a demand for change. This was especially true when taken into account with the speed of economic development of western Europe, which grew greatly – the people of fascist states now believing that they were not only sacrificing their wealth in the name of an ideology, but doing it also to support German welfare.

POL_Deutschland_Siegt_An_Allen_Fronten_zpsec8dc97e.jpg


The “Victory sign” in Bromberg – monuments such as this were established by Volksdeutsche communities as a sign of their strength, aggravating many
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top