The Footprint of Mussolini - TL

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by Sorairo, Feb 20, 2019.

Loading...
  1. Herr Frage Jesus Christ Is In Heaven

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Location:
    Behind a black gate and to the left of a grove
    Interesting insight on Romanian oil politics. Our first real glimpse on the situation in the Neutral Duo post war aside from the Habsburg Restoration.

    The American government in the mid 50s is trying to win favor with Romania it seems.

    And with Mattei we get our first glimpse of he Post Mussolini order it seems.

    Well well, I honestly wasn't expecting Fascist Italy to be able to throw down with the big players globally in economics.
     
  2. RyuDrago Italian? Yes, but also Roman

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2010
    Location:
    Italy
    Well it was also helped by a much more favorable background. Italian success in this period would be favoured above all by Soviet aggressive expansionism and American isolationism during the Wallace administration.
     
  3. Kaiser Chris Emperor of the United States, Protector of Mexico

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2016
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    Why is the threadmark based on Traveller's response post?
     
  4. RyuDrago Italian? Yes, but also Roman

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2010
    Location:
    Italy
    Probably just a mistake, it happens.
     
  5. gurgu proud genoese

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2019
    Location:
    genoa
    Also, in OTL and TTL Benny considered Romanians essential as part of the roman alliance but since in TTL they are forced to be neutral and dislike Bulgaria for taking the sea coast, Musso is probably just keeping good relations( as it was prior to ww2).
     
    The Undead Martyr likes this.
  6. Ogrebear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    Interesting.

    I wonder if ENI will get into Solar power early given the Libyan and Ethiopian weather?
     
  7. Sorairo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2016
    My wrongdoing.
     
  8. Icedaemon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Ah, so Mattei gets to his brilliant OTL position as a compromise candidate. With Italy much more powerful and backing the company to the hilt, it will probably overtake at least some of the 'seven sisters'. I can easily imagine that Shell and BP will copy their more source-friendly politics soonish, as Britain and the Netherlands don't have the power projection to bully states into giving away their oil freely any more. Indeed, ENI probably instituted the '75% to the country the oil is extracted in' rule at least in part because OTL they had little to force to back their policies up with. That not being the case in this timeline, it might not be them who starts with this.

    I wonder if Mattei will officially return to the Christian Democrats after Mussolini is gone. Seems logical, and it would be interesting to see if Italy manages a clean and smooth withdrawal from fascism or not. Given how OTL Portugal and Spain did it quite reasonably, it seems very plausible.
     
    TheNerd_, Ferd42 and andry2806 like this.
  9. AZNMAGICMAN Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2016
    Although it's possible that Italy ends up going like China after Mao, where the Fascists still stay in power albeit they make many reforms.
     
  10. Alpha-King98760 Aku's most favorite assassin, babe!

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2015
    Location:
    The future where Aku's evil is law, babe.
    I just had a thought, has there been Arab immigration to the United States since the First Arabian War?
     
    President Earl Warren likes this.
  11. Arlos Sad monarchist Donor

    Joined:
    May 20, 2017
    Location:
    France
    Would the US allow it since they are communist allies?
     
    Alpha-King98760 likes this.
  12. Alpha-King98760 Aku's most favorite assassin, babe!

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2015
    Location:
    The future where Aku's evil is law, babe.
    Hmmmm, probably not.
     
  13. Lalli Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Arabs hardly are allowed enter to United States if not proven being anti-Communists. And not sure if Arabs want move to any Western nation which they see being ally of Israel. They perhaps move to other Arab countries, other Muslim countries or possibility to Eastern Block, speciality USSR altough not sure if they are allowed entered there. Might be even more difficult than going to USA.
     
    Alpha-King98760 likes this.
  14. Seandineen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    What about South Africa? Large Muslim population is already present in the mixed race population.
     
  15. AK47Productions Show me your true form!

    Joined:
    May 15, 2014
    Location:
    Garreg Mach
    Speaking of South Africa, wonder what's going on there what with Apartheid and all presumably still going on.
     
    Alpha-King98760 likes this.
  16. traveller76 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    While it has not been mentioned I am assuming that the National Party has won in 1948 and has started Apartheid and suppressing any dissidents for being 'Communists'. Wallace and the Progressives in the US will not have liked it but any criticism or punishment was probably blocked by Republicans and Freedomites. Post Wallace the US/ETO will express distaste and make criticisms but that it is since there is lots of business to be had. The Alliance on the other hand would have no problems and South Africa has another friend for arms, intelligence and investment if the West starts to isolate them.
     
    Ogrebear and Alpha-King98760 like this.
  17. Threadmarks: Dolchstoss

    Sorairo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2016
    Dolchstoss


    ‘The Making of Fascist Bloc’ by Jodie Rutkins

    The expansion of ITO had been met with public approval by the Roman Alliance, in keeping with the Mussolini Doctrine of support to the democracies of the world. Privately, the dictator was frustrated, believing that the expansion of ITO to encompass the United States and White Commonwealths (South Africa would join ITO in 1950) meant that the Roman Alliance was gradually losing relative power. In late 1949 and early 1950, Mussolini felt that it was his last best chance to expand the Alliance on easy terms. Patton and Churchill were both broadly sympathetic to the Roman Alliance, or at least certainly more so than the Democrats or Labour Party (the former assumed to make a comeback which never happened).

    With confirmation from the Patton Administration that they would not oppose the move, in August 1949 the first non-European member of the Roman Alliance was added to the fold. It was President Peron’s Argentina, who had made a habit of standing out from the crowd in Latin America. As Argentina was unwilling to make the political reforms that would assure membership of ITO, Patton was more comfortable having Mussolini drag Peron into the Cold War on the side of the West by having Peron join the less public-relations focussed Roman Alliance. While some worried that this violated the Monroe Doctrine, Patton insisted that the most important mission America had in the post-Wallace era was to rebuild relations with Europe – “Allies are allies”, as he famously said to Eisenhower. The move was met with wide celebrations in Argentina, owing to the large amount of the population with Italian and Spanish ancestry. After the precedent had been made, the Roman Alliance had gone from an exclusive, core club in the Mediterranean to an international power broker. Eva Perón, wife of the President, would celebrate the newfound alliance by travelling to every European state in the Roman Alliance (leading to long-standing rumours she had an affairs with Mussolini, though it likely was just innuendo by political opponents). With newfound access to markets and expertise, Argentina exited isolation and entered the wider market again, regaining an economic credibility she had long since lost.

    The Italians would continue their power-reach in Latin America. Months after Argentina’s ascension, Trujillo’s Dominican Republic would enter into the alliance. In 1951, Nicaragua would also join the Roman Alliance, and in 1952, shortly after a military coup, President Batista of Cuba announced his membership of the Roman Alliance in an attempt to combat charges he was an American puppet (though he had first confirmed through the American Ambassador that such a move would be okay as long as America’s economic position on the island remained intact). Though Batista failed to realise it at the time, his time presiding over the country (or more accurately failure to preside) would lead to one of the most important events of the Cold War. Patton outright encouraged the moves as a way to force Latin America to contribute troops and materials to the front-line of the Cold War. Indeed, American troops were often given free travel through the countries, with Mussolini explaining, “They (Nicaragua/Cuba/the Domincan Republic) are our friends, not our possessions – unlike what Poland, North Iran and Hokkaido are to Stalin.” Batista, Trujillo and Somoza would all receive ticker-tape parades through Rome – not all of them had such a glorious ending.

    On January 3rd 1950, Thailand became the first Asian member of the Roman Alliance (assuming one counts Turkey as European, which it certainly would prefer). Surrounded by turmoil on all sides, the monarchical nation (though under firm control of Field Marhsall Phibun) was firmly Anti-Communist but had no interest in liberal ideas that seemed utterly unsuited to such dangerous terrain. While the Roman Alliance were often colonialists, they had no designs on the country and were glad to accept Thailand into the fold (who provided a convenient counter to charges to the bloc of White Supremacy during the latter half of the twentieth century). Thailand was already supplying men and material to the Chinese War, but it now became utterly enmeshed in the conflict, and not just due to events in China itself. That March, Thailand openly declared itself to be a Fascist state in the mold of Mussolini’s Italy.

    Though South Africa and Rhodesia both maintained their current ties to the Commonwealth for the moment, both increased their under-the-table cooperation with the Roman Alliance. Both had accepted tens of thousands of Polish refugees from the war-torn country. Along with Portugal, they had brought the refugees to cheap, hastily constructed hovels that may have been unenviable, but were outside the reach of Communism. While outside the main cities of settlers, the ‘Poletowns’ soon provided a fantastic source of willing soldiers. Angry, bitter Polish men were told to vent their frustration on ‘Communist militias’ (often mere Anti-Colonial Liberationists), and willing did so. At the same time, they provided training and support to the Polish Liberation Army, continuing to provide training and support to the battered militia that still held out in the Carpathians. PLA Leader Witold Pilecki would go so far as to call Portugal, Rhodesia and South Africa, ‘The Guardian Angels of Polish liberty’. With Italy mainly administering the transfer of Polish refugees from Czechia to Africa, the settler nations would owe Italy a debt they would fully repay during the sixties and seventies.


    “Our Misguided Friends”: Fascism in Democratic Nations by Amy Long

    Churchill’s constant delays to Indian Independence had by now triggered a wave of protests throughout the region, made all the worse by its close proximity to the Chinese conflict. In January 8th 1950, the whole administrative region was grounded to a halt by peaceful strikes and protests organized by Gandhi and the National Congress. Though Patton offered to help Churchill maintain order in the region, Churchill assured him that everything was under control. What was not under control was Churchill’s situation in Parliament. Hugh Gaitskell’s Labour Party (Gaitskell having ascended the ranks due to Bevan’s combativeness and concerns among the higher-ups he was too far to the left), fresh after having removed Clause Four from the Labour Party Constitution, hammered Churchill for his handling of the Indian situation and warmness towards the Roman Alliance. Gaitskell would stand before Parliament and accuse Churchill of “recreating the Anglo-Irish War except in a country of nearly a billion people.”

    Behind the scenes, however, there were fractures in the Indian Independence movement. The Islamic and Hindu factions had grown increasingly hostile over the former’s want of a separate Islamic state. The Islamic movement, alongside most of the Sunni world, had been radicalized by the fall of Jerusalem and considered Britain an agent in that act of sacrilegious monstrosity. While protests organised by Gandhi and other Hindu leaders were generally peaceful, the Islamic ones took on an increasing level of violence. Ironically, the inciting incident would be from among the Hindu population on February 27th. A Pro-Mao Communist protest had taken place in New Dehli, which was shut down by the police. Unfortunately many mistakenly believed that the police were shutting down a Pro-Independence drive and attempted to stop them. This led to a conflict between the police and protesters that ended up killing five policemen and forty Indian civilians. The news soon spread and riots began breaking out all across India in response to the news, with thousands killed in the explosion of violence despite Gandhi’s pleas. Finally, Churchill’s coalition partners had enough and pulled the plug on his government, with Churchill losing a vote of no confidence.

    On April 27th 1950, the first majority Labour government came to power under Gaitskell in an astonishing landslide of nearly 380 seats. The population had grown weary from drab Post-War conditions, constant foreign entanglement and a sense that Churchill did not know how to manage peace. Once an obviously Anti-Communist but doubtless progressive leader of the Labour Party came along, it was no contest. Churchill would resign his leadership of the party and hand it over to Anthony Eden. Oswald Mosely’s Fascist Party stunned observers by gaining thirty seats, definitively replacing the motley collection of Liberals as the third political force in Britain. Gaitskell’s popularity soared as he invested strongly in health and education (though never going as far as to nationalize the health service as many on the left wanted), continued to support Chiang in China and more vocally opposed the actions of the Roman Alliance where it was obvious the group was behaving improperly. As was Labour policy, he supported Indian independence.

    However, while Gaitskell and the Labour Party wanted Indian Independence, they wanted the country to be a whole and secular one. This was to minimize the fears that the Muslim Bloc would not only separate but join the Communists like the Arab states did (indeed, many Islamic leaders in India threatened to do just that in joining the Comintern). While Gaitskell won many friends in the Hindu leadership circles, the Muslim League under Jinnah were adamant: “Pakistan (a Muslim state) or resistance”. Once it was discovered that the Soviets were funding the Muslim League under the table, the resulting revelation tanked British support for a separation-styled solution to the crisis. Though the Congress were dominated by Socialistic elements with former sympathies to the Soviet Union, the revelations of Stalin’s behaviour both in Europe and now in India caused an increasing belief in India that the future lay with some form of accommodation with the West, even if not necessarily with Britain. Despite that, Gandhi continued to protest for a peaceful solution to what had become known worldwide as ‘The Indian Crisis’, which was watched with particular attention due to the nearby wars happening in China and Indo-China. Indeed, a significant amount of Indian troops were already fighting in China against the Communists (though friendly-fire incidents between Hindu and Muslim servicemen was growing increasingly common.)

    Ultimately, Gandhi would never see his dream of an independent India. On June 6th 1950, an Islamic extremist assassinated him. The assassin would later be discovered through archives unearthed in Moscow to have been financed and instructed by Soviet spies. The plan was to spark a conflict in India that would distract and undermine the West by starting a Civil War in India between those that wanted a Hindu-majority state comprising all of the subcontinent and a separate Islamic Republic. In this, the Soviets succeeded completely. Gandhi’s death triggered sectarian riots across the country that spiraled totally out of control. Realising that it was now or never, Jinnah declared Pakistan an independent state on June 10th 1950, comprising the Muslim regions of the country both in the west and east. The Indian Civil War had begun to the joy of absolutely no one but the men in the Kremlin and Beijing.



    ‘The Arab Tragedy: 1944–1956’ by Abdul Nazim

    The entire Arab region was rife with discontent, even after the mass expulsion of Jews from non-Israeli territory. The years after the First Arabian War had brought no economic revival, no positive political reform nor even more hope. The Israelis were rapidly industrializing, the Roman Alliance had grown ever more powerful and the Colonial West had joined in the kicking. It was at this time that movements appealing specifically to the Arab people started to gain major traction. While Communism certainly got a boost in the arm, its more avowedly atheistic nature hurt it among the mainly socially conservative region. At this time, Islamism remained a relatively radical fringe movement outside of Saudi Arabia (a state of affairs which would not last forever, unfortunately). Most painfully was the belief in ‘The Stab in the Back Myth’, that the only reason the Arabs had failed in the First Arabian War was due to the weakness and decadence of their ruling elite commanders. The failures of the Arab leaders both political and military in the build-up to the war and during it are well established, but no serious historian doubts that the Arabs faced no chance against the qualitatively superior Western forces. Despite that, while Germany ultimately survived the disastrous consequences of mistakenly believing their own Dolchstoss, its debatable if the aftermath of the Second Arabian War can be counted as ‘survival’.

    It’s no coincidence that Syria was the location where the first rumbles of what was to come would originate. Syria had been particularly bruised in the war, having not only lost the Golan Heights to Israel, but the entirety of her rich, cosmopolitan coast to Turkey. Cut off from the sea, and forced by political necessity not to trade with either the hated Turks or Jews, the Syrian state fell into total disrepair. There could be as many as three political coups in a week in some cases. Poverty and violence were universal and everyday experiences. Here, much like Germany, a strange nationalist group was gaining traction. They were called the Ba’ath Party, under the command of Syrian Christian Michel Aflaq and Muslim Salah al-Din al-Bitar. Though separated by religion, they were united in their love of the Arab mythos. They forsaw a great Arab revival in a solitary, united and Socialist Arab state to fight against ‘Judeo-Colonialism’ as would be used in state propaganda. Though they started small, they rapidly became a serious political presence in Damascus. Their Anti-Turk, Anti-Semitic, Anti-West rhetoric found great support among the population. By mid 1950, the Ba’ath Party could attract six figure crowds in Damascus in a week’s notice. On August 19th 1950, Colonel Adib al-Shishakli, the latest military leader of Syria, decided that things had gone far enough and ordered the military to arrest the Ba’ath Party leaders. Instead, the soldiers turned their guns on al-Shishakli, killing him and most of his cabinet. Aflaq and his fellow comrades were delivered a letter from the soldier who had performed al-Shishakli’s killing, saying he was invited into the President’s office at any time. By nightfall, the Ba’ath Party had set-up shop in the halls of power in Damascus. In a radio broadcast that night, Aflaq would infamously declare, “Give us but ten years, and no one will recognise the Arab World.” It would certainly be true, though absolutely not in the way he intended.

    In Syria, most people gladly went along with the change – no one loved the juntas, but many loved the Ba’ath Party. It united all Arab religious groups, all Arab class groups and all Arab geographical groups. There was relatively little blood spilled outside of the ruling elite upon the ascension of the Ba’ath Party. Again, it should be noted that this is quite in common with the Nazis, as was the ultimate conclusion. At the same time, the initial reaction to the ascent of the Ba’ath Party was muted in the West and Israel. They considered it just one of another in an endless string of purges in a miserable part of the world. The notion of the Arab world teaming up seemed laughable at this point. The Soviets were no longer bankrolling them to any serious degree, most Arab nations blamed each other for the loss and the West remained overwhelmingly superior in men and weapons. In fact, Iraq was the most concerned by the change in stewardship. King Faisal would infamously pen a letter to Prime Minister Gaitskell to say, “That man (Aflaq) will be the death of us all. I just know it.” Suspecting that it was a ploy to strengthen his own position and undermine Western support of Israel, Gaitskell would dismiss the letter. Gaitskell would rue that ignoring the letter 'was the single worst mistake of my time in office'.
     
    sleepy, Taloc13, Human1991 and 53 others like this.
  18. Incognitia Classic plotter

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Why would Labour remove, or need to remove, Clause 4?

    In the 1990s, after nationalising whole swathes of the British economy, having seen...mixed results, from that...and then with the Conservatives having privatised much of what was nationalised, changing clause 4 was an important signal that Labour wasn't going to start immediately trying to re-nationalise.
    In the late 1940s/early 1950s, the British economy hasn't been nationalised yet, a lot of private industry will be struggling, and so I don't see why it would be necessary to make this change.
     
  19. traveller76 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    The Indian Civil War will make the Partition look like a Sunday Picnic. Thailand may industrialize more supplying forces in China. South Africa may have a more Central and Eastern European character as the Poles and others rise in the ranks and society.
     
  20. Sorairo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2016
    Just a symbolic gesture to prove they aren't Communists - Gaitskell even considered it OTL when he was the Labour leader. ITTL Britain circa 1949 is about OTL McCarthyite US levels of hatred of Communists - you don't even want to know what TTL US is like. In practice, they're fine with nationalising (and they certainly do a little bit).
     
Loading...