The Footprint of Mussolini - TL

[President Earl Warren]

“Give us but ten years, and no one will recognise the Arab World.”

People don't jinx yourself like that... Literally plagerizing the failure who lead his nation into being gassed and divided is... Not the brightest move

 

[Sphenodon]

Interesting to see how much the Roman Alliance continues to grow, and in particular how this may impact South America's development in both economic and geopolitical quarters. May well become a large point of contention between the U.S. and Italy once their current fervent anti-Communism wears down past its zenith.

Also, India is going to be in for a really bad time in the near future. Hopefully this doesn't go so terribly as to cause the subcontinent to fracture - Hyderabad tried to become independent separately from both Pakistan and India even OTL, so who knows what would happen should authority fully collapse over India.

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’.

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 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'.

Just what special brand of ruin is in stock for the Arab world?

 

[Icedaemon]

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.)

Hm. Seems that, with the moderate one-nation Tories and the moderate 'Gaitskellist' Labour safely trading the top spot, Britain is due to be one of the better places to live in this timeline. At least as long as the soviet union exists, any drift towards marxism would be a poison pill for Labour, while the drivers which pushed the Tories towards being more oriented towards Thatcher's policies were largely a reaction to the actions of a very left-wing Labour and even more left-wing union bosses. Also, with no Monroe doctrine in this timeline, I cannot see Germany making the economic boom they did in our timeline. This will allow other states more time to become a major industrial power in Europe. With little devastation from the war, Italy is likely to be a major beneficiary of this, but the same is true of Britain. Eventually, the US will have a president who is less than friendly towards Mussolini, but still need a friend in Europe. Thus, Britain is still likely to have something of a preferential relationship in this timeline with the USA, although it will not be quite as close (and far from as subservient) as in OTL.

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.

Reading about Gandhi's assassination, I half expected the shock of it to lead to a coalition of Hindu and pro-western groups to unite and shut the Muslim League down before they get militant. This will not be pretty.

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.

There's a vast gulf between saying 'nationalisation is part of our core ideology' and 'we will not nationalise things'. Labour will no doubt leave themselves the option, but ideologically-driven leftist moves will be considered very suspect in a timeline when the soviets are so much more clearly seen as the villains they were. In the end, nationalising industries and companies when it is practical rather when it is possible is likely to lead to a far better result.

 

[Whiteshore]

On June 6th 1950, an Islamic extremist assassinated him.

At least Gandhi's assassin IOTL was a crazy Hindu.

 

[Herr Frage]

Congratulations Churchill, you broke the subcontinent more than OTL. And the continued rise of the BUF is disturbing.

I had so hoped the butterflies might lead to a better outcome for all people in the Subcontinent.

So anyone have thoughts on how RA membership might change things for Thailand?

 

[Bookmark1995]

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.

I dread an Indian civil war will be OTL Bosnia times 1000.

 

[Whiteshore]

Hopefully this doesn't go so terribly as to cause the subcontinent to fracture - Hyderabad tried to become independent separately from both Pakistan and India even OTL, so who knows what would happen should authority fully collapse over India.

Don't forget there was a movement in Bengal for an independent and secular Bengal separate from India AND Pakistan.

 

[Joriz Castillo]

So Michel Aflaq has become the Arabian Hitler in the making, it seems. He's about to taste what the real Hitler got just a few years earlier.

So India is in turmoil between Hindus and Muslims. What happens to the various minorities there such as Sikhs, Parsis, Jains, etc.?

Is non-violence as a protest tactic gonna be discredited ITTL?

I've always heard of Churchill being unsuited to peacetime ruling. India here just seems to exemplify his flaw.

 

[Scerus]

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.

In practice Labour had been in power two times but never implemented it. I believe the reason got their own way with nationalisation was because of the parlous economic situation and the scale of their majority - not only that, ITTL Labour failed to win 1945.
So it would not be totally implausible to suggest that there was some revision.

 

[Noblesse Oblige]

Why do I have that sinking feeling that Syria is going to cease to exist? This very much seems like a recipe and an excuse in the making to partition Syria between Israel and Turkey. (Maybe Lebanon too, but where the crap is Lebanon here?)

I forget, did the population transfers happen ITTL or not? If not, we could see the civil war actually spread throughout India, since it would largely be Hindu vs. Muslim (and probably everyone else caught in the crossfire) Whether or not India would collapse into a series of separate states though, I don't know, but I can definitely see, besides Pakistan, other Indian states could attempt to bolt, if only to protect themselves from both Indians and Pakistanis.

In both cases, Soviet machinations have effectively discredited non-violence in protests, while effectively and brutally killing any notions of Arab Pan-Nationalism and the Two-State Concept in India.

 

[RyuDrago]

Baa'thism in Syria is one thing. Baa'thism in Iraq another one. But, if will comes to Egypt...

And so imploded the Raj and blowed up Churchill in the process. Likely sending Pakistan more firmly in the red camp - I mean Pakistan TTL can really go commie.

Interesting to see how the American market of the RA is indeed a shadow way to keep on the Monroe doctrine - give those states a glimpse of freedom from Washington and meanwhile retain American business. Italy is happy, the US too, and so those new members, everybody wins!

 

[Lalli]

Why do I have that sinking feeling that Syria is going to cease to exist? This very much seems like a recipe and an excuse in the making to partition Syria between Israel and Turkey. (Maybe Lebanon too, but where the crap is Lebanon here?)

I forget, did the population transfers happen ITTL or not? If not, we could see the civil war actually spread throughout India, since it would largely be Hindu vs. Muslim (and probably everyone else caught in the crossfire) Whether or not India would collapse into a series of separate states though, I don't know, but I can definitely see, besides Pakistan, other Indian states could attempt to bolt, if only to protect themselves from both Indians and Pakistanis.

In both cases, Soviet machinations have effectively discredited non-violence in protests, while effectively and brutally killing any notions of Arab Pan-Nationalism and the Two-State Concept in India.

IIRC there wasn't population transfer in India. So things are going to be very messy and there probably is some local genocides against Muslims and Hindus.
And when India is politically and ethnically very diversed things are going to be extremely messy. Syrian Civil War x 100. No one will win that.

 

[generalurist]

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’.

“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.

Oh dear god something horrible is about to happen.

Mussolini saved the Jews from Hitler, but I'm not sure if this world's genocide quotent is actually less than OTL.

 

[Sorairo]

I'll clarify a few questions in one post:

There was no population transfer in India. Things moved much too quickly to make one. A lot of Hindus and Muslims are caught deep in hostile territory. The British are supporting the Hindus in trying to retain a single Indian state, with Patton giving Gaitskell a blank check. The Soviets are giving limited backing to the Muslim League, mostly to cause headaches in Western governments. Gaitskell is trying to moderate the Hindu-dominated Indian government to be more accomodating to minorities but it can only go so far. Most minorities back the Hindus since they feel it will ingratiate them to a victorious India as loyalist groups.

Churchill actually gets pretty well let off by history, as well as Gaitskell, which sees the Indian Civil War as inevitable given sectarian tension and Soviet meddling.

Non-violence isn't discredited. It worked in getting the British to stand down time and again. It is discredited against totalitarian regimes and religious extremists. Pretty OTL mostly.

It won't be genocide for the Arab world but ... you may have noticed I've never mentioned a 'Third Arabian War' ...

 

[Noblesse Oblige]

I'll clarify a few questions in one post:

There was no population transfer in India. Things moved much too quickly to make one. A lot of Hindus and Muslims are caught deep in hostile territory. The British are supporting the Hindus in trying to retain a single Indian state, with Patton giving Gaitskell a blank check. The Soviets are giving limited backing to the Muslim League, mostly to cause headaches in Western governments. Gaitskell is trying to moderate the Hindu-dominated Indian government to be more accomodating to minorities but it can only go so far. Most minorities back the Hindus since they feel it will ingratiate them to a victorious India as loyalist groups.

Churchill actually gets pretty well let off by history, as well as Gaitskell, which sees the Indian Civil War as inevitable given sectarian tension and Soviet meddling.

Non-violence isn't discredited. It worked in getting the British to stand down time and again. It is discredited against totalitarian regimes and religious extremists. Pretty OTL mostly.

It won't be genocide for the Arab world but ... you may have noticed I've never mentioned a 'Third Arabian War' ...

I'm not too much expecting a Third War, even if there is no genocide (I really hope there is no genocide), it would be pretty clear that Pan-Arab nationalism would be completely and utterly buried, because let's face it, the Ba'athists do not stand a chance against the RA.

 

[Whiteshore]

“Give us but ten years, and no one will recognise the Arab World.”

Tempting fate, I see.

 

[Kalga]

Oh boy, it's time for the Arabs to be great again!*

Spoiler: *

no, not reference to current politics, actually a reference to Lawrence of Arabia, specifically this scene:

(which I'm guessing ain't gonna be made in this timeline. Shame, but I'm sure David Lean will have other ideas to make epics of)

 

[Lalli]

Oh boy, it's time for the Arabs to be great again!*

Spoiler: *

no, not reference to current politics, actually a reference to Lawrence of Arabia, specifically this scene:

(which I'm guessing ain't gonna be made in this timeline. Shame, but I'm sure David Lean will have other ideas to make epics of)

Clearly Lawrence of Arabia is not made ITTL when there is not much sympathy towards them. Probably there is some notable movie about First Arab War.

Just wondering how movie Exodus would look like if ever made.

 

[RyuDrago]

I have the feeling not all the Arab states will end so bad...Iraq I think would stand. Arabia, I think would depend mostly how much Salafism will develop and radicalize TTL.

In all honesty I see much better Yemen, Oman, and the petty realms of the Gulf...

But I think Egypt and Syria will cry a lot in the second round.

 

[Lalli]

I have the feeling not all the Arab states will end so bad...Iraq I think would stand. Arabia, I think would depend mostly how much Salafism will develop and radicalize TTL.

In all honesty I see much better Yemen, Oman, and the petty realms of the Gulf...

But I think Egypt and Syria will cry a lot in the second round.

Iraq perhaps will be in better place depending what there will happen. Yemen and Gulf monarchies probably are too fine. Syria and Egypt will be pretty bad surely and they will regret deeply and long.

One thing: In 1950 there is two nuclear powers and both of them have used the bombs. Italy is quiet good candidate to be third nuclear power. And Mussolini have not any problems use just toys. Nuclear genie is pretty much out of control. I wouldn't be surprised if we will see some big mushrooms in Syria and Egypt.