Terrorism idea: Imperial fundamentalists

[Strategos' Risk]

Ulster loyalists and Rhodesians are both interesting examples of hidebound relics of an empire in retreat, because they fought against the law enforcement of the crown they ostensibly swore fealty to. Fundamentalism in the sense that they believed the way of life they embodied (a pre-WWII, pre-colonization, imperial, traditionalist) was truer than what was being practiced in London.

Same you can say about the OAS and the Pied-Noir who resisted Algerian independence. They were so intent on continuing the pre-colonial way of France that they actually tried to kill their own national hero. But they considered themselves Frenchmen and patriots just the same.

Another example could be Mishima's Tatenokai - that was more of a cult of personality around an eccentric author. But if more Japanese had taken him and his society's ideas seriously in the postwar, there you go.

Israeli ultranationalist groups like Kach, or the assassin of Yitzhak Rabin, would qualify in a way, since they swear allegiance to either the nation-state Israel or the concept of Israel, yet fight against its government for not doing enough to ensure their country retains its territories. Settlers who fight the IDF would be similar to the above groups. Though obviously unlike the other countries mentioned, modern Israel is not an empire.

I wouldn't say ultra-nationalists by default fall under what I'm saying. For instance, far right militias in the U.S. are not angry because the federal government is pulling back from the American empire- in fact, they are angry because they see it as expanding and encroaching. These other groups are mad because their empires are receding.

I'd say the British and Japanese examples are particularly interesting because these were people who considered personal loyalty to the actual monarchs of their countries, even when those monarchs oversaw governments who found them to be extremists. Kinda awkward.

An amusingly ironic futuristic example is from GURPS Cyberworld-

Eire

Britain withdrew from Northern Ireland in the face of increasing agitation to eliminate "foreign entanglements" during the economic depression of the mid- 90s. An Act of Union between Ulster and Eire was engineered as part of this withdrawal, but the terms (limited autonomy for the North, guarantees of representation for Protestants in the Seanad - the Senate) displeased IRA extremists, just as the union itself infuriated hard-line Ulster factions. Terrorism and internecine strife are still frequent occurrences in the Republic. Perhaps the strangest twist in the conflict is the Ulster Liberation League, whose bomb raids on U.K. sites have the avowed purpose of forcing Britain to "recognize its historical debt to Ulster and restore our rights as British citizens."

So are there any other examples of such anti-decolonization, ancien régime type terrorists not going gently into the night in the postwar era? And how could there be AH versions of them? For instance, how about SE Asia, angry Indochina War French vets who wanted to continue the fight, Dutchmen who wanted to continue their hold over Indonesia? Americans furious at Carter for relinquishing the Panama Canal Zone?

I've made threads about this recently that I can link to if there's interest, and here's one that's not by me:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-south-african-guns-in-ulster-hands.418394

 

[Wolf of Badenoch]

Interesting post - I had been thinking about placing Hong Kong in the same sort of position during the run up to handover in 1997. I could envisage a small group of 'loyalists' making things very hard for both the UK and China. The interesting thing is that the group would not be solely 'Crown Loyalists' as per Ulster and Rhodesia but also a confederation of pro Taiwan nationalists, older Chinese anti communists and younger Chinese who had been brought up by immigrant parents to fear and despise the Party. I guess the chances of finessing a rethink and obtaining independence for Hong Kong on a Singapore like basis are pretty slim, but it would make for 'interesting times'. A bit of a rerun of 1967, perhaps? But with some players chasing sides!

 

[overoceans]

Americans furious at Carter for relinquishing the Panama Canal Zone?

From what I've observed, American post-imperial resentment tends to focus more on the idea that relenquishing territory threatens the mainland(eg. losing the Canal Zone might give the commies more turf close to the Lower 48), rather than romantic notions of colonies and their colonists as a civilizing force of Empire.

Cuban exiles in Miami are a bit of an execption, but of course, they are Cuban, either directly or ancestrally. I doubt your average rah-rah USA patriot, however much he hates Castro, cares about what a lovely outpost of Americana pre-Communist Cuba was.

There ARE certain segments of American society that go a little ga-ga over Israel, and in the unlikely event of an American president and/or congress deciding to pull its support and treat Israel as just another country, with no special claim on American affections, I could see some of the loopier Christian Zionists going berzerk, violently so in some cases.

 

[overoceans]

Love The Jewish People

A Jack Chick tract, originally titled Support Your Local Jew(presumably someone pointed out the negative implications of that). TL/DR: the USA will be destroyed as a world power if it abandons Israel.

 

[Arkenfolm]

There ARE certain segments of American society that go a little ga-ga over Israel, and in the unlikely event of an American president and/or congress deciding to pull all special support and treat Israel as just another country, with no special claim on American affections, I could see some of the loopier Christian Zionists going berzerk, violently so in some cases.

"Violently" I doubt. It just doesn't strike me as an issue like abortion where people will literally kill/blow people up over it. Protests, yes, even more hatred for the US government, yes, but terrorism? Seems a bit far out. Maybe Israel arrests some Christians doing yet another plan to blow up the Dome of the Rock or something.

 

[overoceans]

"Violently" I doubt. It just doesn't strike me as an issue like abortion where people will literally kill/blow people up over it. Protests, yes, even more hatred for the US government, yes, but terrorism? Seems a bit far out. Maybe Israel arrests some Christians doing yet another plan to blow up the Dome of the Rock or something.

Yeah, I wasn't thinking of any extended military campaign a la the Provisional IRA. Probably less violence than the abortion people, but slightly more than the 90s militias. It IS an apolcalyptic issue for a lot of the Christian Zionists, so I could see maybe a dozen or so Timothy McVeighs diving into battle(though they'd be lucky to achieve his body count, even as a grand total). Plus, in the other main wing of Zionism, you have the Jewish Defense League, who DO have a history of stateside terrorism, though I think they've more or less relocated to Israel, with Mach and whatnot.

re: the Dome Of The Rock. Yeah, plausible. And if the USA were to "normalize" relations with Israel(in the sense of removing privileges and aid), you'd probably see attacks on American targets in Israel(embassy etc), from various types of pro-Israeli extremists.

 

[Cryptic]

"Violently" I doubt. It just doesn't strike me as an issue like abortion where people will literally kill/blow people up over it. Protests, yes, even more hatred for the US government, yes, but terrorism? Seems a bit far out. Maybe Israel arrests some Christians doing yet another plan to blow up the Dome of the Rock or something.

That is the ironic part. In the USA, it is the far left that is more likely to get violent over a strategic U.S. geopolitical withdraw from the world stage. Even this, however, would be limited to a few violent demonstrations over the US leaving the Paris Climate Accord, reducing foreign aid to developing nations, or reducing its role in and support for the U.N.

Another factor in the low potential for domestic violence in the USA is that local far left and far right groups are fragmented and don't have a single unifying cause (ie Ulster protestants). Anti Abortion and Israel may get support from religious fundamentalists, but that support dwindles with secular right wingers. Likewise, western grazing issues and refusals pay range fees can mean little to a right winger in South Carolina.

Then factor in that the Feds tend to slam domestic security threats hard. After the smoke clears and the fan boys disperse, budding or actual terrorists, regardless of political orientation, quietly find themselves facing federal prosecutors and facing decades in prison.

 

[MortimerWClankitybritches]

Love The Jewish People

A Jack Chick tract, originally titled Support Your Local Jew(presumably someone pointed out the negative implications of that). TL/DR: the USA will be destroyed as a world power if it abandons Israel.

Also worth contrasting with the "JEWS WILL GO TO HELL UNLESS THEY REPENT" Jack Chick tracts given how it nicely encapsulates the "it is our sacred and holy duty to protect Israel and the Jews....because when Jesus comes back he wants to smite those Hebrew motherfuckers personally" insanity of the religious right.

 

[overoceans]

Also worth contrasting with the "JEWS WILL GO TO HELL UNLESS THEY REPENT" Jack Chick tracts given how it nicely encapsulates the "it is our sacred and holy duty to protect Israel and the Jews....because when Jesus comes back he wants to smite those Hebrew motherfuckers personally" insanity of the religious right.

Well, in fairness to Jack Chick(and yes, I realize that's like saying "In fairness to absolute lunacy"), he does allow that Jews who accept Christ will be saved. In fact, according to most pre-mil eschatology, it is converted Jewish evangelists who win souls for Jesus after the Rapture.

And some of the pre-mils are even nice enough to emphasize that Jews who convert are still Jewish thus giving rise to the whole Jews For Jesus and Messianic Jewish movements.

 

[Cryptic]

Also worth contrasting with the "JEWS WILL GO TO HELL UNLESS THEY REPENT" Jack Chick tracts given how it nicely encapsulates the "it is our sacred and holy duty to protect Israel and the Jews....because when Jesus comes back he wants to smite those Hebrew motherfuckers personally" insanity of the religious right.

Jack Chick is batty, even by fundamentalist standards.

Other members of the religious right can far more articulate and have far more nuanced positions regarding Jews and the end times. Usually the nuance is: "Well, when Jesus returns, all of the true nation of Israel will see his glory and convert to Christianity with a Jewish twist. Thus, no real Jews will go to hell.... ."

 

[overoceans]

You could probably file this under Only In America.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

Ulster loyalists and Rhodesians are both interesting examples of hidebound relics of an empire in retreat, because they fought against the law enforcement of the crown they ostensibly swore fealty to. Fundamentalism in the sense that they believed the way of life they embodied (a pre-WWII, pre-colonization, imperial, traditionalist) was truer than what was being practiced in London.

In Ulster "loyalism" is a bit more complicated than that, it is to some degree a separate ethnic/religious group not being desirous of being subsumed by a larger religious and ethnic group. The larger group having adopted populist nationalist republicanism, the smaller group has to find a different ideology to differentiate itself and does so through Crown loyalism and Orangeism. Socially conservative yes, but actually more heavily wedded to state intervention in the economy and the welfare state than the mainland British are (as Theresa May is now finding to her dismay)
Moreover, in both cases, the minority had strong economic drivers to resist majority rule and needed to find an ideology that suited that approach.

 

[Mightyboosh5]

Imperial federation would probably create such groups in South Africa/Rhodesia and would attack secessionists/African nationalists.

 

[Wolf of Badenoch]

Yeah, I wasn't thinking of any extended military campaign a la the Provisional IRA. Probably less violence than the abortion people, but slightly more than the 90s militias. It IS an apolcalyptic issue for a lot of the Christian Zionists, so I could see maybe a dozen or so Timothy McVeighs diving into battle(though they'd be lucky to achieve his body count, even as a grand total). Plus, in the other main wing of Zionism, you have the Jewish Defense League, who DO have a history of stateside terrorism, though I think they've more or less relocated to Israel, with Mach and whatnot..

When they were involved in the foundation of Israel, the Stern Gang proved itself no lightweight opponent of the Brits - and even the 'authorised' Palmach were skilled at the use of the asymmetric threat.

 

[Whiteshore]

In a scenario where Taisho democracy limps along and Japan eventually lets go of Korea, maybe Japanese ultra-nationalism is vented through terrorists (who may or may not be rogue junior officers) who want the Empire to keep Korea and assassinate prominent Japanese politicians?

 

[Strategos' Risk]

In Ulster "loyalism" is a bit more complicated than that, it is to some degree a separate ethnic/religious group not being desirous of being subsumed by a larger religious and ethnic group. The larger group having adopted populist nationalist republicanism, the smaller group has to find a different ideology to differentiate itself and does so through Crown loyalism and Orangeism. Socially conservative yes, but actually more heavily wedded to state intervention in the economy and the welfare state than the mainland British are (as Theresa May is now finding to her dismay)
Moreover, in both cases, the minority had strong economic drivers to resist majority rule and needed to find an ideology that suited that approach.

Sure, though ultimately it's funny how they fought against the same government they staunchly loved. Like, unlike other types of ultra-nationalists, I don't think Ulstermen or Rhodesians simply loved the idea of Britain, but they were loyal to the very state that their beloved Queen reigned over. So it places them in a funny awkward situation.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

Sure, though ultimately it's funny how they fought against the same government they staunchly loved.

But that is my point. Historically, the Ulstermen were far from staunch in their adherence to the British Government. Irish (and American) Republicanism ultimately derive from Presbyterian ideas about church government. Ulster Presbyterians were at the core of the United Irishmen movement, fought for Washington in the American War of Independence (Henry Knox being the most prominent) and among the earliest abolitionists (of the slave trade I mean) in the British Isles and largely voted Liberal (though I will concede that mid Victorian Ulstermen were reconciling themselves to the British Empire) up until Gladstone adopted Home Rule as a policy in the 1880s after which their views went a remarkable volte-face. And even today they fall into the economically liberal and socially conservative category. Certainly, they have placed themselves in a bizarre position but, as I say, the economic and cultural drivers were not totally irrational nor was the "Crown and Empire" position adopted deeply culturally rooted. Rebellion against the British government or indeed any government likely to interfere with their way of life is actually their most consistent political trait across the last five centuries.

 

[Tales Weaver]

In a scenario where Taisho democracy limps along and Japan eventually lets go of Korea, maybe Japanese ultra-nationalism is vented through terrorists (who may or may not be rogue junior officers) who want the Empire to keep Korea and assassinate prominent Japanese politicians?

Or maybe a terrorists in korea in 80s calling for return to japanese rule to destroy the military junta..

 

[Arkenfolm]

Or maybe a terrorists in korea in 80s calling for return to japanese rule to destroy the military junta..

Makes me wonder how many North Korean dissidents out there would prefer a Japanese re-annexation of the DPRK to continued rule by the Kims.

 

[overoceans]

Or maybe a terrorists in korea in 80s calling for return to japanese rule to destroy the military junta..

If these terrorists were left-wing(as seems likely, if they were opposing the military regimes), I'd consider it very implausible that they would support a return to Japanese rule over the peninsula. Pro-Japanese opinion isn't really respectable anywhere on the Korean political spectrum, but if I had to choose one side to consider more implacably hostile than the other, it would be the left.

Unless maybe the idea is that Japan itself is a left-wing power, and Korean leftists want it to liberate them? I guess that could have some possibility, but then we're dealing with a pretty different Northeast Asia than the one we know in this time line.