Map: Three-bloc Cold War

Each column on the legend/key is an allied bloc. White means neutral.

The Baghdad Pact of OTL survived the coup, though Iraq was halved in the process, with a western-friendly Kurdistan in the north. Cyprus was negotiated. Iran is under a shah that's slightly less repressive. Pakistan seems likely to leave soon, though that would mean it would have to face off against India and the other bloc.

The Francophone Community is like the Commonwealth of Nations except with a stronger mutual defense/anti-Communism package. France left NATO in the '60s, but continues to collaborate with them. Algeria became an associated nation earlier on in OTL's conflict.

The Bandung Accord was created at OTL's Conference. It is the loosest of all blocs. It stands for the points outlined in OTL's conference, plus economic cooperation and very strong defensive measures (theoretically). The members get along much better than OTL, especially China, India, and Indonesia. It's not exactly nonaligned, but it truly is neutral, with nations that don't particularly care for better relations from either the NATO-led bloc or the Warsaw Pact one. The Accord doesn't have much of an ideology other than anticolonialism and maybe some tenets of socialism. The PRC is still a PR, but its history is much different from OTL's. The Sino-Soviet split happened earlier, and the reasons behind had the sides reversed, if you know what I mean. Chinese communism is not as strict as it was in OTL, and is very much different from Soviet-styled communism. However, it's still a very evangelical sort of ideology, and is opposed to the West in rhetoric at least.

It's not a true three-way cold war, though some in China would want it to be. NATO and the Warsaw Pact, as in OTL, support locals, initiate covert operations, and send troops when they want their ideology to rule in a particular country. The Bandung Accord does the same except send troops, and it never has actually done so.

I'm still not sure about what color to put some of the remaining African nations under. Neutral seems good enough.

The year is, I don’t know, 1980.

cw.PNG

cw.PNG
 
Strategos' Risk said:
Each column on the legend/key is an allied bloc. White means neutral.

The Baghdad Pact of OTL survived the coup, though Iraq was halved in the process, with a western-friendly Kurdistan in the north. Cyprus was negotiated. Iran is under a shah that's slightly less repressive. Pakistan seems likely to leave soon, though that would mean it would have to face off against India and the other bloc.

The Francophone Community is like the Commonwealth of Nations except with a stronger mutual defense/anti-Communism package. France left NATO in the '60s, but continues to collaborate with them. Algeria became an associated nation earlier on in OTL's conflict.

The Bandung Accord was created at OTL's Conference. It is the loosest of all blocs. It stands for the points outlined in OTL's conference, plus economic cooperation and very strong defensive measures (theoretically). The members get along much better than OTL, especially China, India, and Indonesia. It's not exactly nonaligned, but it truly is neutral, with nations that don't particularly care for better relations from either the NATO-led bloc or the Warsaw Pact one. The Accord doesn't have much of an ideology other than anticolonialism and maybe some tenets of socialism. The PRC is still a PR, but its history is much different from OTL's. The Sino-Soviet split happened earlier, and the reasons behind had the sides reversed, if you know what I mean. Chinese communism is not as strict as it was in OTL, and is very much different from Soviet-styled communism. However, it's still a very evangelical sort of ideology, and is opposed to the West in rhetoric at least.

It's not a true three-way cold war, though some in China would want it to be. NATO and the Warsaw Pact, as in OTL, support locals, initiate covert operations, and send troops when they want their ideology to rule in a particular country. The Bandung Accord does the same except send troops, and it never has actually done so.

I'm still not sure about what color to put some of the remaining African nations under. Neutral seems good enough.

The year is, I don’t know, 1980.

View attachment 10473
What about the Sino-Indian border disputes, and the lack of Namib independence until 1990?

...Or, Britain's remaining colonies and dominions?
 
Last edited:
Admittedly, my knowledge of Africa and Latin American during the Cold War era is pretty spotty. That's why I requested for more info about Africa.

As for Sino-Indian relations, well, I did say the PRC is under different leadership with different ideologies. And the border disputes are negotiated and butterflied away with the Bandung Accord's creation.
 
Maybe the French led block also has South Vietnam, rather then it being reunified with the north.
 

Seldrin

Banned
Papua New Guinea would probably still be in the hands of Australia, it was originally taken to prevent German involvement in the area. With the threat of the Bandung accord it's likely that it would be seized again to keep it from falling into the wrong hands.
 
If its 1980, it raises questions about Africa.

A three-way Cold war with two communist-leaning sides would place a lot more pressure on the West to hold their nose and tolerate the white-ruled African states, meaning Rhodesia and Namibia are on the allied side. Rhodesia would almost certainly be a South African client state.

Brazil and Argentina were ruled by very pro-western military regimes in 1980 (Argentina's collapsed after the Falklands War in 1982, Brazil's from internal power struggles in 1985) so putting those two as US allies probably is not a hard sell either. Peru would be a neutral state in all likelihood.
 
Papua New Guinea would probably still be in the hands of Australia, it was originally taken to prevent German involvement in the area. With the threat of the Bandung accord it's likely that it would be seized again to keep it from falling into the wrong hands.

Ever heard of Sukarno say anything about the Pacific colonies ? The name "Asia-Africa" for the conference was actually pretty accurate.
 
^ But the Indonesian military couldn't top the Aussies in the 1960s or 1970s, and if the Alliances gets involved so does the USN. Hence, big war - not wanted by anybody. Sukarno knew that.
 
The "Francophone Alliance" would include both Congos, Rwanda, Burundi, Togo, and Benin in Africa. It's also likely that it would include South Vietnam and Cambodia ITTL.

Also, Papua New Guinea would like as not be the seventh Australian state.
 
^ But the Indonesian military couldn't top the Aussies in the 1960s or 1970s, and if the Alliances gets involved so does the USN. Hence, big war - not wanted by anybody. Sukarno knew that.

Do you, by any means, take my point above as contradicting yours ? How did you do that ? :confused: Asia-Africa, not Asia-Africa-Pacific !
 
I'm new so forgive me if I say something stupid.
One of the major reasons that Indonesia got West Papua from the dutch was US pressure because they thought Sukarno could be wooed into the western camp. If he's gone and thrown himself into the Chinese camp I can't really see that happening. In fact the West is probably funding every half arsed insurgency in Indonesia and at this point there are quite a few whole arsed ones around too.
 
I'm new so forgive me if I say something stupid.
One of the major reasons that Indonesia got West Papua from the dutch was US pressure because they thought Sukarno could be wooed into the western camp. If he's gone and thrown himself into the Chinese camp I can't really see that happening. In fact the West is probably funding every half arsed insurgency in Indonesia and at this point there are quite a few whole arsed ones around too.

If Bandung Conference was as successful as the OP proposed then this third bloc won't be called Chinese camp at all, at least at first. At least in its early days it would be a bloc with a generally strong enough mutual understanding in regards of both US and Soviet blocs between it members to the point a hegemonical influence wouldn't be needed to sustain it, at least until the next turning point, which I think its occurrance won't be a given either, though quite likely. Successful Bandung Conference would also give Indonesia quite a prestige in before the other Non-Aligned Movement members thus it is safe to assume Indonesia won't succum into Chinese "lead" comfortably without right conditions, thus if China would immediately to take over the leading position from Indonesia without any justified considerations, the Sino-Indonesia relationship actually would be fairly in reversal towards the OTL case.

Certainly however, all that shouldn't help Indonesia in the case of West Papua, unless somehow Australian card becomes available and Indonesia can play it nicely. ITTL however, there seems to be a larger chance of an Indonesian full-scale invasion into West Papua happening.
 
Last edited:
Top