Opinions/Plausibility: Asian (military) Alliance

Alright, so after reading about India launching its first nuclear submarine earlier I got to thinking and came up with a basic timeline idea, however I'd like to get people's opinions on it.

Alright, so the first part of it takes some place during the Indian Independence Movements Day's, sometime during the 40's, essentially America (to some degree) was more vocally supportive of Indian Independence.

This eventually leads to the formation of an Asian military Alliance comprised of the American Allies in Asia, officially independent of any other group, but unofficially NATO-East essentially.

By the late 60's the Alliance starts to make incremental moves towards becoming more Independent of the West and by the mid 80's is has become fully independent, though still more or less allied with NATO.

After that, while maintaining ties with the West it goes on its own development path.


I've provided a simple map to illustrate my idea better, thoughts, opinions?

NATO-ATA.png
 

wormyguy

Banned
India (and it's Bangladeshi puppet) were and are emphatically not US allies. They were more in the Soviet sphere if anything.

It's not inconceivable you could see an alliance of US allies in the Pacific. You might want to add South Vietnam (temporarily), Singapore (possibly), and ANZAC, though.

EDIT: "China"/Taiwan would get thrown out in 1979, when the US stopped official diplomatic recognition.
 
Last edited:
India (and it's Bangladeshi puppet) were and are emphatically not US allies. They were more in the Soviet sphere if anything.

It's not inconceivable you could see an alliance of US allies in the Pacific. You might want to add South Vietnam (temporarily), Singapore (possibly), and ANZAC, though.

EDIT: "China"/Taiwan would get thrown out in 1979, when the US stopped official diplomatic recognition.

That's the original POD, the US backing India alot more form the start and not being as anti-communist towards them so India falls into the US sphere rather than the Soviet one.

As for Taiwan I'm thinking that with a major regional and western presence and backing the PRC eventually recognizes Taiwan since they have absolutely no chance of getting it back, even in war.

Oh, map's meant to be modern day.
 
1. India's main long term threat is China. The best ally against China is Russia.

2. India's other main security concern is Pakistan. During the Cold War, the West wants alliance with Pakistan more than with India, because (a) Pakistan is diplomatically close to oil-rich Arab states (did you know Pakistan even lent military forces to the Saudis until quite recently?), (b) because it is part of the containment strategy surrounding the USSR.

The other factor, arguably secondarily, is that the Indian independence movement had a strong socialist leaning, pro-protectionism, pro-government led industrialisation plans etc., So this would also be a source of friction with the US. I believe it's still in the Constitution of India today that India is at least nominally a socialist republic.

What the US may have said about Indian independence pre-1948 is irrelevant to these considerations.
 
So you're advocating a bigger and beefier SEATO? It failed because it had no teeth and was basically just a talking shop. I suppose theoretically it could have been an Asian NATO, but that just wasn't how the cookie crumbled IOTL.

Anyway, India was prominent in the Non-Aligned Movement and explicitly rejected picking a side in the Cold War. The Third World was supposed to be a counter-pole to the First World of the US and its allies and the Second World of the USSR and co. You'd have to posit a way different Indian nationalism, one that didn't make such a big deal on self-sufficiency.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
So you're advocating a bigger and beefier SEATO? It failed because it had no teeth and was basically just a talking shop. I suppose theoretically it could have been an Asian NATO, but that just wasn't how the cookie crumbled IOTL.

Anyway, India was prominent in the Non-Aligned Movement and explicitly rejected picking a side in the Cold War. The Third World was supposed to be a counter-pole to the First World of the US and its allies and the Second World of the USSR and co.

That's what I was thinking. If India and Indonesia could've found some common ground and found themselves a common enemy that they felt threatened them both (in the same way that the West felt the USSR was threatening it), then the South Pacific could've coalesced.
 
Top