The Footprint of Mussolini - TL
Emphasis on *slightly* here. in 2014, Hokkaido made up 3.6% of the Japanese GDP.
Granted, even the slightest discrepance would make a nation a bit more weaker in the long term.
Rooting out the endemic corruption of the interbellum era and building up a nation devastated by both Japan's buchery and a horrific civil war will still take a long time. I am thinking that by the time China really gets their industry into gear, Tata Motors might have OTL Toyota's market share.
Been distracted of late, so sorry it took so long to get back. Also have been typing this over ... seems like its been (6) hours or so. XP
Having read further into the Irish Troubles, specifically the history around the car bombings, I have found myself in agreement here. The question remains though, and I'm surprised it hasn't arisen already, when either side begins using proxy bombs.
I wasn't thinking about the Black Fascists specifically; I could see the African Legion within UNIA-ACL becoming more popular and taking a larger role, and other new Paramilitaries being established by Black veterans of the Second World War and the Chinese War.
As for a name of for the Black Fascists, might I suggest "Solda Afrik"? It is one of the translations of Fianna Fail into Haitian Creole, lacking the ability to do the same into Jamaican Patois; I would have preferred the later given Marcus Garvey and his adherents would have served as a major influence amongst these types, and his philosophy was amongst the more significant of the earlier period within the outer African community. For similar reasoning I'd also hesitate for any African Americans to attach the term Fascist to themselves, as the term was more or less poisoned by Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia in 1935, making even Garvey do a bit of a '180 in regards to their relationship.
As for a name of for the Black Fascists, might I suggest "Solda Afrik"? It is one of the translations of Fianna Fail into Haitian Creole, lacking the ability to do the same into Jamaican Patois; I would have preferred the later given Marcus Garvey and his adherents would have served as a major influence amongst these types, and his philosophy was amongst the more significant of the earlier period within the outer African community. For similar reasoning I'd also hesitate for any African Americans to attach the term Fascist to themselves, as the term was more or less poisoned by Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia in 1935, making even Garvey do a bit of a '180 in regards to their relationship.
The response here will be a bit longer because I had to do some research, my New York Times subscription coming in handy.
As something I myself have cited, I looked into the conflict regarding the Filibuster that happened in 1959, which was in large part fueled by resentment towards the South regarding its use to block any form of Civil Rights reform of any significant worth. At the time the rules of the Senate had to be voted upon each ensuing session, so for example the (1951-1953) period, the (1953-1955) period and so on, which is why the inability to invoke cloture on filibusters against the Senate Rules became a sticking point; given the way the Senate ran at that time, you also couldn't pass legislation while a filibuster of a previous motion was ongoing, meaning the more Conservative Senators generally got their way so that other matters were dealt with. However after the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was passed, its gutting by Southern Senators troubled Liberal Senators enough that, to my surprise, they considered a rather Radical reformation of the Senate Rules.
Known as the Douglas Proposal after its primary advocate, Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois, it proposed the following:
A compromise of sorts was also put forth, known as the Morton Proposal after its advocate Senator Thurston Morton of Kentucky, which simply would have done the following:
Everything lost out to then Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson's proposal, which kept the vote for cloture on a filibuster at (67) votes, but allowed cloture on all matters including filibusters of Senate Rules, and the vote on cloture only counted those Senators who were present for the vote. Those like Jacob Javits and Philip Hart remained opposed, as well as many African Americans, considering it a surrender to the South and making future Civil Rights legislation DOA; many of the South's Senators were not particularly keen either given it removed their omnipotent control on the Senate Rules, but those outside the Deep South and Virginia largely acquiesced.
- - - - -
Long story short, only the new Congress could act to actually change the rules in place; it could not be done in the midst of a Congressional Session.
Also, Congress typically closes the previous year in the Fall; this particular session closed on the 2nd of December, but that was because they were in the midst of dealing with McCarthy's shenanigans, ending with his censure. Course, Patton could call a special session of Congress, but that still wouldn't solve the problem of being unable to change the Senate Rules for that session.
As something I myself have cited, I looked into the conflict regarding the Filibuster that happened in 1959, which was in large part fueled by resentment towards the South regarding its use to block any form of Civil Rights reform of any significant worth. At the time the rules of the Senate had to be voted upon each ensuing session, so for example the (1951-1953) period, the (1953-1955) period and so on, which is why the inability to invoke cloture on filibusters against the Senate Rules became a sticking point; given the way the Senate ran at that time, you also couldn't pass legislation while a filibuster of a previous motion was ongoing, meaning the more Conservative Senators generally got their way so that other matters were dealt with. However after the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was passed, its gutting by Southern Senators troubled Liberal Senators enough that, to my surprise, they considered a rather Radical reformation of the Senate Rules.
Known as the Douglas Proposal after its primary advocate, Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois, it proposed the following:
- That a vote for cloture could be made against any filibuster after a period of (15) days, requiring a simple majority vote amongst the membership.
- That the Senate may change its rules at the opening of each Congress by a majority vote amongst the membership.
A compromise of sorts was also put forth, known as the Morton Proposal after its advocate Senator Thurston Morton of Kentucky, which simply would have done the following:
- That a vote for cloture could be made against any filibuster, requiring the vote of (3/5) of those Senators present to pass; in other words, absent Senators were no longer counted.
Everything lost out to then Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson's proposal, which kept the vote for cloture on a filibuster at (67) votes, but allowed cloture on all matters including filibusters of Senate Rules, and the vote on cloture only counted those Senators who were present for the vote. Those like Jacob Javits and Philip Hart remained opposed, as well as many African Americans, considering it a surrender to the South and making future Civil Rights legislation DOA; many of the South's Senators were not particularly keen either given it removed their omnipotent control on the Senate Rules, but those outside the Deep South and Virginia largely acquiesced.
- - - - -
Long story short, only the new Congress could act to actually change the rules in place; it could not be done in the midst of a Congressional Session.
Also, Congress typically closes the previous year in the Fall; this particular session closed on the 2nd of December, but that was because they were in the midst of dealing with McCarthy's shenanigans, ending with his censure. Course, Patton could call a special session of Congress, but that still wouldn't solve the problem of being unable to change the Senate Rules for that session.
I know Senators have done so, but typically they hold off when their seat is up in the same year given they are often forced to make a choice. There isn't anything preventing a change of the law though, and Thurmond certainly was popular enough amongst Carolinian Democrats at the time.
As for him being leader, the irony at the time was that many of his fellow Southern Senators actually considered him a bit of a liability, in that his methods in fighting Civil Rights legislation compromised their ability to negotiate with its proponents. Richard Russell on the other hand was more or less the de facto leader of the Southern Bloc, and was regularly suggested as a prime candidate for the Presidency by Southern Senators and voters, and was experienced enough in cultivating relationships that he'd be largely unchallenged in either role should he seek it. Nominating Russell would also be important if the Freedom Party wants to present a further still "Moderate" tone on Civil Rights, as Strom Thurmond was …. …. well, he tended to come across as a Bircher in his earlier years.
As for him being leader, the irony at the time was that many of his fellow Southern Senators actually considered him a bit of a liability, in that his methods in fighting Civil Rights legislation compromised their ability to negotiate with its proponents. Richard Russell on the other hand was more or less the de facto leader of the Southern Bloc, and was regularly suggested as a prime candidate for the Presidency by Southern Senators and voters, and was experienced enough in cultivating relationships that he'd be largely unchallenged in either role should he seek it. Nominating Russell would also be important if the Freedom Party wants to present a further still "Moderate" tone on Civil Rights, as Strom Thurmond was …. …. well, he tended to come across as a Bircher in his earlier years.
Eh, I have strong doubts on this score, especially as Joseph Kennedy Sr. was a known politician who actively built a sizable network to drawn on amongst the wider Irish-American community, and had made a number of controversial statements and decisions in his time. Joseph Kennedy Jr. as a Republican would have a modicum of trouble deflecting charges that he'd be de facto taking his father on as an advisor, or shared some of his father's views, which is not necessarily true ( Joe Jr.'s opposition to Roosevelt in 1940 being a major example). Still, such insinuations would be made and popularized amongst detractors.
I had also forgotten that the Kennedy family was also very close to Senator Joseph McCarthy, with Robert Kennedy being attached to McCarthy's staff in the midst of his crusade. Unless there is some major break in their relationship, and I don't really see much reason for such a break occurring given none of the Kennedy's actively distanced themselves from him, I don't even see Joseph Kennedy Jr. running in '56, except as a favorite son for Massachusetts with an eye at joining McCarthy on the ticket. Now we could then go with the idea that Nixon manages to knock McCarthy out of the race leaving Kennedy with an opening, but the scandal is still going to tar Kennedy's image given his family's involvement, and will deter a number of more Liberal Republican supporters who may have been on the fence before; there is also the issue of whether Nixon takes it personally if Kennedy opts to abstain from the brouhaha between him and McCarthy in the primary (i.e. not support either side), to a point where they are no longer compatible as a ticket.
A lot to think about, but I'm running out of time to write this up.
I had also forgotten that the Kennedy family was also very close to Senator Joseph McCarthy, with Robert Kennedy being attached to McCarthy's staff in the midst of his crusade. Unless there is some major break in their relationship, and I don't really see much reason for such a break occurring given none of the Kennedy's actively distanced themselves from him, I don't even see Joseph Kennedy Jr. running in '56, except as a favorite son for Massachusetts with an eye at joining McCarthy on the ticket. Now we could then go with the idea that Nixon manages to knock McCarthy out of the race leaving Kennedy with an opening, but the scandal is still going to tar Kennedy's image given his family's involvement, and will deter a number of more Liberal Republican supporters who may have been on the fence before; there is also the issue of whether Nixon takes it personally if Kennedy opts to abstain from the brouhaha between him and McCarthy in the primary (i.e. not support either side), to a point where they are no longer compatible as a ticket.
A lot to think about, but I'm running out of time to write this up.
It is never my intention to force the authors' hand on any matter, to drive change in the material, but I do try my utmost to make clear the challenges a presented scenario might have to face. Whether the author(s) choose to act on said critiques is ultimately up to them, and I'll admit that at times outcomes that I would not normally deem as ... sensible ... make fore a better story, or at times actually are more realistic then we give them credit for.
This particular tale is already one of my favorites, and I am mighty envious of your ability to write one given my own inability to put my own idea to paper. Never be scared, follow what you think best.
This particular tale is already one of my favorites, and I am mighty envious of your ability to write one given my own inability to put my own idea to paper. Never be scared, follow what you think best.
Well Korea is doing better. No famines seem to be in the making and while still a dictatorship, it looks like it will be more of an oligarchy after Kim's demotion.
I am particularly intrigued by the Northern Iranian government having talks with Korea. I admit I had written them off as little more than a Soviet Colonial venture, but it looks like they have some nerve if nothing else.
Hmm, I wonder if Korea will be ITTLs Cuba?
I am particularly intrigued by the Northern Iranian government having talks with Korea. I admit I had written them off as little more than a Soviet Colonial venture, but it looks like they have some nerve if nothing else.
Hmm, I wonder if Korea will be ITTLs Cuba?
It sounds like Kim will try and return to power though. And the current regime in Moscow will not last; that may be when he takes his chance to reclaim the helm.
The Blood Libel
Hey all, last update for a while unfortunately (probably close to a month). I hope this extract at least makes you interested in what is about to befall Arabia.
As time progressed, it was clear Khrushchev had gained the most from Stalin’s ultimate demise. Malenkov and Molotov were both relatively unpopular within the Politburo at the time, at least compared to the Ukrainian. Khrushchev certainly excelled in charisma, which made him the more public member of the Troika. In 1953, he became the First Secretary of the Communist Party, although he would never become Premier, which likely was ultimately his plan. Perhaps due to the aura of fear he created around himself due to Stalin’s mysterious death, Molotov and Malenkov were initially somewhat timid of opposing Khrushchev, giving him time to implement a program that was, compared to Stalin, a breath of fresh air.
Of course, the situation Khrushchev faced in 1953 was a total disaster on every front. Internationally, not only was the USSR as big a pariah as it was in 1920, Communism itself had become a near-universally loathed ideology. Khrushchev wanted to fund Anti-Colonial resistance movements, feeling they would be good places for growth. However, he was stunned to find that with few exceptions (like Che Guevara in Cuba) many movements outright turned down Communist assistance, fearing not only Western intervention but popular backlash as well. Communist electoral parties, once on the verge of popular victories as late as the 1940s, had been electorally annihilated from Mexico to Manilla. Sympathetic Left-wing politicians had likewise all but vanished. For example, the Labour Party in England had gone from being sceptical but cooperative with Soviet representatives to being as hostile to them now as the Tories were a generation before. The Tories now hated the Communists as much as the Fascists used to, and the less said about the Fascists the better. With the knowledge of the Second Holocaust, Jewish Communists, a minority in membership but certainly an influential one, had abandoned the movement (many becoming Fascists). Gentiles who still cared deeply about combatting racism had likewise forsaken the party. By now, only a handful of extremists and delusional believers remained on the side of the party. Their only ally whom they were not occupying or controlling, the UAR, had improved relations following Stalin’s death.
That was only abroad. At home, the Soviet economy, though relieved from the brutal pressures of the Chinese War, still faced low-level conflict in North Iran and Poland. The Soviets had significantly lower amounts of trade than before due to many nations now out and out refusing to recognise them, and the ones who did so due to the terms of the Chinese War armistice still did everything they could to avoid economic interaction. The economic system itself was shambolic with production figures so ludicrously fictional that they had become a running joke in the working classes. The resentment was growing in Russia, but in the slave states it was outright boiling. In May 1953, strikes struck Bratislava due to unreasonable work quotas that were ruthlessly crushed though the quotas were eventually relaxed. The sudden loss of Jewish intellectuals, technicians and bureaucrats had likewise been devastating for Soviet science, which already lagged behind the West. All in all, the Soviet Union was forced, as Khrushchev told the party faithful in early 1956, “To save the future of mankind,” by which he meant ‘the popularity of Communism’.
Khrushchev eased the Terror State, which instantly boosted the economy since less people were doing nothing in the wilds of Siberia. Certain liberalizing economic reforms were initiated to get the economy moving again. He began an international publicity campaign to improve the Soviet image in the Third World, emphasizing the rights of the Third World against colonialism. Knowing that any good relations with Israel were now out the window, he continued condemning ‘Zionism’, which increased his popularity in the Third World while further sinking it in the First. Arms sales proved a crucial method of reviving the Soviet economy, as the UAR was purchasing almost everything the USSR could give. In an alliance as perverted as the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Saudi Arabia and the USSR even had low-level arms trading. The Saudis had economically distanced themselves from the United States after the First Arabian War owing to their support of Israel, though the State Department hadn’t cared since no one thought Stalin and the Saudis would move closer – but Khrushchev did. They also funded Kurdish resistance fighters in Turkey to try and fight the Fascist regime there, in a move that was soon to backfire spectacularly. While there were improvements to the Soviet position in Africa and Latin America, the Middle East was the only location outside their immediate control where they exerted strong influence. This helps explain the events of 1957, in light of what would happen the year before.
In 1956, Khrushchev would deliver his ‘Secret Speech’, wherein he condemned Stalin for having ‘nearly destroyed Communism both here and abroad’. Notably, his Anti-Semitism was not condemned in the speech. In fact, the persecution and expulsion of the Jews was outright used as positive state propaganda under Khrushchev, with the party press in Ukraine in December 1955 praising him for, “Finally resolving the Jewish problem in our lands.” Regardless, as Jews had effectively been expelled from the Eastern bloc, there was nothing to stop Khrushchev from easing daily restrictions. He would become quite popular with Soviet citizens, who had suffered so immensely during World War 2 and continued to suffer deprivation to cover Mao in China. With Khrushchev looking increasingly secure, Molotov and Malenkov were sidelined, though the Ukrainian was desperate not to repeat the follies of the Stalin years and did not have them executed, the consequences being immeasurable. One other thing of consequence far beyond what Khrushchev (or indeed anyone) would have anticipated was Khrushchev’s massive support for the Space Program. Khrushchev believed that the Soviets needed something to beat the West in to recover confidence after the international pounding it had received in recent years. He therefore threw everything he could into the Sputnik program to try and regain Soviet prestige. While his successors naturally took the credit, Khrushchev was the main architect of the program. It’s unclear what Khrushchev would have done if given another five or ten years. The USSR might have reformed and hobbled on until today, it could have started a nuclear World War 3 with the Democracies and Fascists, but Khrushchev didn’t last five more years or even five years at all. Just as a spark in the Balkans began the nightmare of World War One and the destruction of the international order, so did a spark in Arabia began one of the most consequential wars in human history.
By early 1956, it was obvious to everyone that another war was going to hit the Arabian Peninsula. That was what UAR propaganda had indeed promised: a final Apocalyptic war that would “Throw Colonialism [in which he included the Jews] into the Sea”. The UAR’s astonishing rise had also caused a surge of Pan-Arabian nationalism that outpaced the Ba’ath Party. Aflaq was by now, “More popular than The Prophet himself” according to one dispatch from British administrator in Kuwait in February 1956. Aflaq had taken a divided and scattered people, who had felt betrayed and tossed around by the colonial powers ever since the Balfour Declaration, and turned them into a (supposedly) united, powerful state that could influence the direction of history. Syria, where the Ba’ath Party had arisen, had in particular seen the benefits. The streets were orderly, everyone was in work, the Refugees were at one with the population, access had returned to the Sea and Iraqi oil money had began to help people in both Syria and Iraq. A primitive welfare state was constructed, which though almost primordial was unprecedented in the Arab world. While dissent was ruthlessly snuffed out, the average poor Arab was untouched by the regime. Soviet economic aid was likewise greatly appreciated and helped kick-start countless projects from Cairo to Basra. And of course, the animating life and essence of the state was the promise of vengeance against the Jews. The UAR was more Anti-Semitic that even Nazi Germany was in the 1930s, including on the street level. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was mandatory reading in school, trade with Israel was a capital offence and by the outbreak of the war, the Jewish population of the UAR (including Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Oman and Lebanon) was 1,000, of which five-hundred were Omani due to the recent nature of the Ba’ath Party’s ascendance. Owing to laws forcing Jews into ghettoes, they all lived in a small area inside Muscat. This was exactly why Aflaq chose the small backwater for his purposes.
On top of that, while it is incomprehensible from a modern perspective, Aflaq had many defenders on the international scene. The Communist world (minus the suspicious North Iran) and his Arab partners not withstanding, he had some support among European Leftists, even among those who did not align with Communism. He also had strong support in Africa, leading to his sometimes being considered a martyr among Pan-African groups (the obvious conflicts over the dividing line between the Arab and African worlds being avoided due to the events of the War). This was because he was seen as an Anti-colonial hero, who had given a community to displaced Arabs (the Trans-Jordan refugees, who were his biggest supporters). This was a major reason why many European countries did not join the crusade, such as Sweden, which had no interest in fighting what was widely seen at the time as a colonial war. Yet while these initially gave strength to Aflaq, it was exactly this overreliance on foreign support that would cause him to make his most fateful mistake (indeed, perhaps the greatest mistake in the history of the Arab world).
On March 20th, the 12 year old son of prominent Ba’athist Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr disappeared while the family was in Muscat. This was initially shrugged off by the international community as a meaningless side story that didn’t concern them. That was until a badly mutilated corpse was unearthed a week later, which al-Bakr insisted was his son. The corpse was badly burned, as if an attempt was made to destroy the body, but it was clear something else had happened. Investigation revealed that the boy (and it was a boy) had been drained of blood, been pierced through the wrists and feet as if crucified and had serious cuts on his forehead and skull as if wearing a ‘crown of thorns’. When the news got out, it ignited an unprecedented firestorm through the whole Middle East. The affair, at first a local story in the UAR alone, now became an international event. In something entirely predictable, Aflaq said that the Jews of Muscat had murdered the child in a blood ritual for Passover – the infamous Blood Libel. The Blood Libel stated that Jews, every year around Passover murdered a Christian/Gentile child and used their blood to add to their bread. It had instigated countless pogroms throughout history and this was no exception. While there had been countless instances of the Blood Libel in history, the Muscat Blood Libel was without doubt the most infamous and the most diabolical. Diabolical, in that while many Blood Libels were cases where a legitimate crime (or even misunderstanding) was falsely blamed on the Jewish community, the Muscat Blood Libel was so wicked precisely because the whole story was a total forgery.
Aflaq had kept tabs on all prominent politicians in the UAR, with al-Bitar leading the security apparatus of the state in a fashion similar to Beria in the USSR. In December 1955, a KGB-made recording device hidden in his house recorded al-Bakr complaining about favoritism to Syria over Iraq in the UAR. Al-Bitar had him discreetly arrested. Al-Bakr was played the recording and began to weep, knowing he had invited certain death upon himself and perhaps his family … but he was given an offer. Al-Bitar gave him two options: he could accept separation from his child by having him participate as a pawn in what would become the Muscat Blood Libel and have the child raised at a distance under a pseudonym … or he could have himself and his family all killed. While the thought of being separated from his son was terrible to him, al-Bakr knew it wasn’t a choice. Amazingly, his son was quite happy with the role, having been taught in school that it was the greatest glory to sacrifice oneself for the sake of the Arab race. It took some time for al-Bakr to convince his wife, but a visit from the security service soon straightened her out too. Thus, a staged trip to Muscat went underway and security service agents ushered off the boy to rural Oman just beside the Yemen border, where he would spend the rest of the year in relative isolation. An already dead street boy in Muscat was taken from the gutter by three Ba’ath party agents and mutilated to resemble the Anti-Semitic legend of the Blood Libel. The boy’s parents claimed that the child was there’s and promptly blamed Muscat’s Jewish community, which Aflaq soon did as well. Riots spread across the Arab world from Casablanca to Kuwait – almost all of them headed by the Ba’athists. The worst effected was Tunisia, with a substantial settler and Jewish population that bore that brunt of the popular anger. Riots shut down Tunis for the whole of March, which continued to grow as policemen often joined the rioters to demand the expulsion of Tunisia’s Jewish population – others not even being as ‘merciful’ as to believe in expulsions. The only place where Arabs did not by and large believe the blood libel was in Libya, where the population had known Jews and did not identify with mainstream Arabism. They preferred the Italian definition that they were Pheocenian descendants of Rome and were treated equally in both name and practice even more so than the French and British colonies. However, they were the only Arab nation in the region not to be rocked with demonstrations and riots.
There were other responses too. On March 24th, Nasser (whom historians still debate as to whether he was aware of the fraudulent nature of the claim) nationalized the Suez Canal Company and swore “We will never let the partners of child-killers cross through our sacred Egypt.” The use of ‘Egypt’ was telling but ignored for the time. Eden would convene an emergency session of Parliament to find that even the Labour Party was broadly in favour of intervening against Aflaq. In France, the parties were generally behind fighting Aflaq as well. The United States promised material and political support but warned its army was too occupied fighting her own battles at home to throw away men in Arabia, especially in an election year. Third World Brazil kept quiet, despite her UN veto, as she did not want to seem Pro-colonial to win over the people of the continent.
On March 27th, the first day of Passover, the some five-hundred Jews of Muscat were crowded together in their ghetto, knowing it was certain death to go outside and face mob violence. That night, the army broke into the ghetto and arrested the entirety of the inhabitants. According to state propaganda, they were going to be sent to prison as a group to answer for their ‘crime’. In reality, they were all sent outside the city, forced to dig a grave for themselves and their children and were shot. Oman’s long-established Jewish community went extinct on that one fateful night. Across the UAR over the next few days, all known Jews were arrested and thrown in jail (slim though it was). Only two are known to have outlasted the Second Arabian War. Aflaq made no secret to his colleagues that, “If the Jews can’t stop talking about Holocausts, I say we should give them one.” He also made a flurry of claims that baffled the Soviet ambassador – saying within an hour that the Nazi Holocaust had never happened, that the Jews had collaborated with the Nazis to pull the Holocaust off, and that there had been a Holocaust but that Jews deserved it. Whichever Aflaq believed, nothing could remove his Hitler-like contempt. Christian leaders preached from the pulpit that the Jews were to blame for the death of Christ and the Imams preached the Jews were to blame for the death of Muhammad. As historian Paul Johnson stated, “It was the spirit of the Islamic and Christian religious Anti-Semitism, mixed with the racial Anti-Semitism of the 19th and 20th Century along with the new Communist-line of Anti-Semitism, merged into one final, ultimate form – the end result of 4000 years of Jew-hating, into one unspeakable monster.”
But the deed, as abominable as it was, accomplished its chief purpose. On the morning of March 28th Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion, enraged by the actions of the UAR gave Aflaq three days to hand over the captive Omani Jewish population while promising to hand over anyone who knew anything about the ‘disgraceful murder of Mr. al-Bakr’s child’, without realising that they had already been killed. That Israel could be so enraged to invoke a risky invasion even before he knew about the level of falsehood surrounding the Blood Libel and the ultimate fate of the city’s Jews was a sign of what would happen after the war. Yet the Israeli army, overconfident after their successes a decade ago and still struggling to integrate the Lehi after they were forcefully combined with the IDF, was caught flat-footed that afternoon. MIG-fighters bought from the Soviet Union hit the Israelis over a wide area, destroying much of the Israeli air force on the ground. Simultaneously, a ground attack began on all fronts – in Saudi Arabia, the Sinai, from the Golan Heights, Lebanon and from Iraq. At the same time, UAR forces from Syria broke through the Turkish borders in Latakia and marched to the Mediterranean. Nasser sent his armies into Libya, promising to unite with Tunisia. That afternoon, the Bey of Tunisia (Muhammad VIII al-Amin) found himself assassinated by his bodyguards. They seized the airwaves and declared allegiance to the UAR, demanding the country ‘rise against and slay your occupiers’ (by which they meant the settlers and Jews). Realising what was happening, France and Britain declared war on the UAR and her allies, but they too were stunned at the course of events. Yemen sent her troops to Aden while the UAR, from Oman, was able to march into the Arab Emirates. Bahrain and Qatar were seized before nightfall by the Saudis due to domestic sabotage by Ba’athist groups in the country (Kuwait, the UAE and Aden all fell within two weeks). In Algeria, bombs rang out across the major cities as the National Liberation Front (FLN), who had been co-opted by the Ba’ath Party, announced that they were creating an uprising against the French. Eighty people died in the first round of bombing, and the numbers only increased as the once shadowy FLN came out of the shadows to openly battle the police and army. Lastly, in Morocco, the Sultan began his long awaited attack on Ifni, with the intention of throwing the Spanish out of the country. Aflaq had fulfilled his promise: a fire had been lit from the Gulf to Gibraltar. Few could have imagined how many lives it would take to snuff it out. If Aflaq thought the West would crumple in fear, he was very wrong about that. And if he thought the Jews were helpless, then he was very wrong about that. [1]
[1] - General mood in Israel:
The Blood Libel
'False Hope: The USSR 1953-1957' by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
'False Hope: The USSR 1953-1957' by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
As time progressed, it was clear Khrushchev had gained the most from Stalin’s ultimate demise. Malenkov and Molotov were both relatively unpopular within the Politburo at the time, at least compared to the Ukrainian. Khrushchev certainly excelled in charisma, which made him the more public member of the Troika. In 1953, he became the First Secretary of the Communist Party, although he would never become Premier, which likely was ultimately his plan. Perhaps due to the aura of fear he created around himself due to Stalin’s mysterious death, Molotov and Malenkov were initially somewhat timid of opposing Khrushchev, giving him time to implement a program that was, compared to Stalin, a breath of fresh air.
Of course, the situation Khrushchev faced in 1953 was a total disaster on every front. Internationally, not only was the USSR as big a pariah as it was in 1920, Communism itself had become a near-universally loathed ideology. Khrushchev wanted to fund Anti-Colonial resistance movements, feeling they would be good places for growth. However, he was stunned to find that with few exceptions (like Che Guevara in Cuba) many movements outright turned down Communist assistance, fearing not only Western intervention but popular backlash as well. Communist electoral parties, once on the verge of popular victories as late as the 1940s, had been electorally annihilated from Mexico to Manilla. Sympathetic Left-wing politicians had likewise all but vanished. For example, the Labour Party in England had gone from being sceptical but cooperative with Soviet representatives to being as hostile to them now as the Tories were a generation before. The Tories now hated the Communists as much as the Fascists used to, and the less said about the Fascists the better. With the knowledge of the Second Holocaust, Jewish Communists, a minority in membership but certainly an influential one, had abandoned the movement (many becoming Fascists). Gentiles who still cared deeply about combatting racism had likewise forsaken the party. By now, only a handful of extremists and delusional believers remained on the side of the party. Their only ally whom they were not occupying or controlling, the UAR, had improved relations following Stalin’s death.
That was only abroad. At home, the Soviet economy, though relieved from the brutal pressures of the Chinese War, still faced low-level conflict in North Iran and Poland. The Soviets had significantly lower amounts of trade than before due to many nations now out and out refusing to recognise them, and the ones who did so due to the terms of the Chinese War armistice still did everything they could to avoid economic interaction. The economic system itself was shambolic with production figures so ludicrously fictional that they had become a running joke in the working classes. The resentment was growing in Russia, but in the slave states it was outright boiling. In May 1953, strikes struck Bratislava due to unreasonable work quotas that were ruthlessly crushed though the quotas were eventually relaxed. The sudden loss of Jewish intellectuals, technicians and bureaucrats had likewise been devastating for Soviet science, which already lagged behind the West. All in all, the Soviet Union was forced, as Khrushchev told the party faithful in early 1956, “To save the future of mankind,” by which he meant ‘the popularity of Communism’.
Khrushchev eased the Terror State, which instantly boosted the economy since less people were doing nothing in the wilds of Siberia. Certain liberalizing economic reforms were initiated to get the economy moving again. He began an international publicity campaign to improve the Soviet image in the Third World, emphasizing the rights of the Third World against colonialism. Knowing that any good relations with Israel were now out the window, he continued condemning ‘Zionism’, which increased his popularity in the Third World while further sinking it in the First. Arms sales proved a crucial method of reviving the Soviet economy, as the UAR was purchasing almost everything the USSR could give. In an alliance as perverted as the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Saudi Arabia and the USSR even had low-level arms trading. The Saudis had economically distanced themselves from the United States after the First Arabian War owing to their support of Israel, though the State Department hadn’t cared since no one thought Stalin and the Saudis would move closer – but Khrushchev did. They also funded Kurdish resistance fighters in Turkey to try and fight the Fascist regime there, in a move that was soon to backfire spectacularly. While there were improvements to the Soviet position in Africa and Latin America, the Middle East was the only location outside their immediate control where they exerted strong influence. This helps explain the events of 1957, in light of what would happen the year before.
In 1956, Khrushchev would deliver his ‘Secret Speech’, wherein he condemned Stalin for having ‘nearly destroyed Communism both here and abroad’. Notably, his Anti-Semitism was not condemned in the speech. In fact, the persecution and expulsion of the Jews was outright used as positive state propaganda under Khrushchev, with the party press in Ukraine in December 1955 praising him for, “Finally resolving the Jewish problem in our lands.” Regardless, as Jews had effectively been expelled from the Eastern bloc, there was nothing to stop Khrushchev from easing daily restrictions. He would become quite popular with Soviet citizens, who had suffered so immensely during World War 2 and continued to suffer deprivation to cover Mao in China. With Khrushchev looking increasingly secure, Molotov and Malenkov were sidelined, though the Ukrainian was desperate not to repeat the follies of the Stalin years and did not have them executed, the consequences being immeasurable. One other thing of consequence far beyond what Khrushchev (or indeed anyone) would have anticipated was Khrushchev’s massive support for the Space Program. Khrushchev believed that the Soviets needed something to beat the West in to recover confidence after the international pounding it had received in recent years. He therefore threw everything he could into the Sputnik program to try and regain Soviet prestige. While his successors naturally took the credit, Khrushchev was the main architect of the program. It’s unclear what Khrushchev would have done if given another five or ten years. The USSR might have reformed and hobbled on until today, it could have started a nuclear World War 3 with the Democracies and Fascists, but Khrushchev didn’t last five more years or even five years at all. Just as a spark in the Balkans began the nightmare of World War One and the destruction of the international order, so did a spark in Arabia began one of the most consequential wars in human history.
‘Miracle: The History of Israel’ by Joel Hagee
By early 1956, it was obvious to everyone that another war was going to hit the Arabian Peninsula. That was what UAR propaganda had indeed promised: a final Apocalyptic war that would “Throw Colonialism [in which he included the Jews] into the Sea”. The UAR’s astonishing rise had also caused a surge of Pan-Arabian nationalism that outpaced the Ba’ath Party. Aflaq was by now, “More popular than The Prophet himself” according to one dispatch from British administrator in Kuwait in February 1956. Aflaq had taken a divided and scattered people, who had felt betrayed and tossed around by the colonial powers ever since the Balfour Declaration, and turned them into a (supposedly) united, powerful state that could influence the direction of history. Syria, where the Ba’ath Party had arisen, had in particular seen the benefits. The streets were orderly, everyone was in work, the Refugees were at one with the population, access had returned to the Sea and Iraqi oil money had began to help people in both Syria and Iraq. A primitive welfare state was constructed, which though almost primordial was unprecedented in the Arab world. While dissent was ruthlessly snuffed out, the average poor Arab was untouched by the regime. Soviet economic aid was likewise greatly appreciated and helped kick-start countless projects from Cairo to Basra. And of course, the animating life and essence of the state was the promise of vengeance against the Jews. The UAR was more Anti-Semitic that even Nazi Germany was in the 1930s, including on the street level. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was mandatory reading in school, trade with Israel was a capital offence and by the outbreak of the war, the Jewish population of the UAR (including Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Oman and Lebanon) was 1,000, of which five-hundred were Omani due to the recent nature of the Ba’ath Party’s ascendance. Owing to laws forcing Jews into ghettoes, they all lived in a small area inside Muscat. This was exactly why Aflaq chose the small backwater for his purposes.
On top of that, while it is incomprehensible from a modern perspective, Aflaq had many defenders on the international scene. The Communist world (minus the suspicious North Iran) and his Arab partners not withstanding, he had some support among European Leftists, even among those who did not align with Communism. He also had strong support in Africa, leading to his sometimes being considered a martyr among Pan-African groups (the obvious conflicts over the dividing line between the Arab and African worlds being avoided due to the events of the War). This was because he was seen as an Anti-colonial hero, who had given a community to displaced Arabs (the Trans-Jordan refugees, who were his biggest supporters). This was a major reason why many European countries did not join the crusade, such as Sweden, which had no interest in fighting what was widely seen at the time as a colonial war. Yet while these initially gave strength to Aflaq, it was exactly this overreliance on foreign support that would cause him to make his most fateful mistake (indeed, perhaps the greatest mistake in the history of the Arab world).
On March 20th, the 12 year old son of prominent Ba’athist Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr disappeared while the family was in Muscat. This was initially shrugged off by the international community as a meaningless side story that didn’t concern them. That was until a badly mutilated corpse was unearthed a week later, which al-Bakr insisted was his son. The corpse was badly burned, as if an attempt was made to destroy the body, but it was clear something else had happened. Investigation revealed that the boy (and it was a boy) had been drained of blood, been pierced through the wrists and feet as if crucified and had serious cuts on his forehead and skull as if wearing a ‘crown of thorns’. When the news got out, it ignited an unprecedented firestorm through the whole Middle East. The affair, at first a local story in the UAR alone, now became an international event. In something entirely predictable, Aflaq said that the Jews of Muscat had murdered the child in a blood ritual for Passover – the infamous Blood Libel. The Blood Libel stated that Jews, every year around Passover murdered a Christian/Gentile child and used their blood to add to their bread. It had instigated countless pogroms throughout history and this was no exception. While there had been countless instances of the Blood Libel in history, the Muscat Blood Libel was without doubt the most infamous and the most diabolical. Diabolical, in that while many Blood Libels were cases where a legitimate crime (or even misunderstanding) was falsely blamed on the Jewish community, the Muscat Blood Libel was so wicked precisely because the whole story was a total forgery.
Aflaq had kept tabs on all prominent politicians in the UAR, with al-Bitar leading the security apparatus of the state in a fashion similar to Beria in the USSR. In December 1955, a KGB-made recording device hidden in his house recorded al-Bakr complaining about favoritism to Syria over Iraq in the UAR. Al-Bitar had him discreetly arrested. Al-Bakr was played the recording and began to weep, knowing he had invited certain death upon himself and perhaps his family … but he was given an offer. Al-Bitar gave him two options: he could accept separation from his child by having him participate as a pawn in what would become the Muscat Blood Libel and have the child raised at a distance under a pseudonym … or he could have himself and his family all killed. While the thought of being separated from his son was terrible to him, al-Bakr knew it wasn’t a choice. Amazingly, his son was quite happy with the role, having been taught in school that it was the greatest glory to sacrifice oneself for the sake of the Arab race. It took some time for al-Bakr to convince his wife, but a visit from the security service soon straightened her out too. Thus, a staged trip to Muscat went underway and security service agents ushered off the boy to rural Oman just beside the Yemen border, where he would spend the rest of the year in relative isolation. An already dead street boy in Muscat was taken from the gutter by three Ba’ath party agents and mutilated to resemble the Anti-Semitic legend of the Blood Libel. The boy’s parents claimed that the child was there’s and promptly blamed Muscat’s Jewish community, which Aflaq soon did as well. Riots spread across the Arab world from Casablanca to Kuwait – almost all of them headed by the Ba’athists. The worst effected was Tunisia, with a substantial settler and Jewish population that bore that brunt of the popular anger. Riots shut down Tunis for the whole of March, which continued to grow as policemen often joined the rioters to demand the expulsion of Tunisia’s Jewish population – others not even being as ‘merciful’ as to believe in expulsions. The only place where Arabs did not by and large believe the blood libel was in Libya, where the population had known Jews and did not identify with mainstream Arabism. They preferred the Italian definition that they were Pheocenian descendants of Rome and were treated equally in both name and practice even more so than the French and British colonies. However, they were the only Arab nation in the region not to be rocked with demonstrations and riots.
There were other responses too. On March 24th, Nasser (whom historians still debate as to whether he was aware of the fraudulent nature of the claim) nationalized the Suez Canal Company and swore “We will never let the partners of child-killers cross through our sacred Egypt.” The use of ‘Egypt’ was telling but ignored for the time. Eden would convene an emergency session of Parliament to find that even the Labour Party was broadly in favour of intervening against Aflaq. In France, the parties were generally behind fighting Aflaq as well. The United States promised material and political support but warned its army was too occupied fighting her own battles at home to throw away men in Arabia, especially in an election year. Third World Brazil kept quiet, despite her UN veto, as she did not want to seem Pro-colonial to win over the people of the continent.
On March 27th, the first day of Passover, the some five-hundred Jews of Muscat were crowded together in their ghetto, knowing it was certain death to go outside and face mob violence. That night, the army broke into the ghetto and arrested the entirety of the inhabitants. According to state propaganda, they were going to be sent to prison as a group to answer for their ‘crime’. In reality, they were all sent outside the city, forced to dig a grave for themselves and their children and were shot. Oman’s long-established Jewish community went extinct on that one fateful night. Across the UAR over the next few days, all known Jews were arrested and thrown in jail (slim though it was). Only two are known to have outlasted the Second Arabian War. Aflaq made no secret to his colleagues that, “If the Jews can’t stop talking about Holocausts, I say we should give them one.” He also made a flurry of claims that baffled the Soviet ambassador – saying within an hour that the Nazi Holocaust had never happened, that the Jews had collaborated with the Nazis to pull the Holocaust off, and that there had been a Holocaust but that Jews deserved it. Whichever Aflaq believed, nothing could remove his Hitler-like contempt. Christian leaders preached from the pulpit that the Jews were to blame for the death of Christ and the Imams preached the Jews were to blame for the death of Muhammad. As historian Paul Johnson stated, “It was the spirit of the Islamic and Christian religious Anti-Semitism, mixed with the racial Anti-Semitism of the 19th and 20th Century along with the new Communist-line of Anti-Semitism, merged into one final, ultimate form – the end result of 4000 years of Jew-hating, into one unspeakable monster.”
But the deed, as abominable as it was, accomplished its chief purpose. On the morning of March 28th Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion, enraged by the actions of the UAR gave Aflaq three days to hand over the captive Omani Jewish population while promising to hand over anyone who knew anything about the ‘disgraceful murder of Mr. al-Bakr’s child’, without realising that they had already been killed. That Israel could be so enraged to invoke a risky invasion even before he knew about the level of falsehood surrounding the Blood Libel and the ultimate fate of the city’s Jews was a sign of what would happen after the war. Yet the Israeli army, overconfident after their successes a decade ago and still struggling to integrate the Lehi after they were forcefully combined with the IDF, was caught flat-footed that afternoon. MIG-fighters bought from the Soviet Union hit the Israelis over a wide area, destroying much of the Israeli air force on the ground. Simultaneously, a ground attack began on all fronts – in Saudi Arabia, the Sinai, from the Golan Heights, Lebanon and from Iraq. At the same time, UAR forces from Syria broke through the Turkish borders in Latakia and marched to the Mediterranean. Nasser sent his armies into Libya, promising to unite with Tunisia. That afternoon, the Bey of Tunisia (Muhammad VIII al-Amin) found himself assassinated by his bodyguards. They seized the airwaves and declared allegiance to the UAR, demanding the country ‘rise against and slay your occupiers’ (by which they meant the settlers and Jews). Realising what was happening, France and Britain declared war on the UAR and her allies, but they too were stunned at the course of events. Yemen sent her troops to Aden while the UAR, from Oman, was able to march into the Arab Emirates. Bahrain and Qatar were seized before nightfall by the Saudis due to domestic sabotage by Ba’athist groups in the country (Kuwait, the UAE and Aden all fell within two weeks). In Algeria, bombs rang out across the major cities as the National Liberation Front (FLN), who had been co-opted by the Ba’ath Party, announced that they were creating an uprising against the French. Eighty people died in the first round of bombing, and the numbers only increased as the once shadowy FLN came out of the shadows to openly battle the police and army. Lastly, in Morocco, the Sultan began his long awaited attack on Ifni, with the intention of throwing the Spanish out of the country. Aflaq had fulfilled his promise: a fire had been lit from the Gulf to Gibraltar. Few could have imagined how many lives it would take to snuff it out. If Aflaq thought the West would crumple in fear, he was very wrong about that. And if he thought the Jews were helpless, then he was very wrong about that. [1]
[1] - General mood in Israel:
Last edited:
50 cents bet the Corn Lord (Khrushchev) is thrown out for the "crime" of deciding that WW3 is not worth supporting Aflaq.
...Whoa. That's quite the fire lit all right. This is going to SUCK. Looking forwards to a month from now.
No word on Italy yet, but I expect they will join real soon. I predict Morocco and Tunisia will get knocked out by France and Britain, while the Roman Alliance storms the peninsula.
By the way, I can't remember: How much if any territory does Italy control in Egypt?
EDIT: Also, what is Israel's population at this point?
No word on Italy yet, but I expect they will join real soon. I predict Morocco and Tunisia will get knocked out by France and Britain, while the Roman Alliance storms the peninsula.
By the way, I can't remember: How much if any territory does Italy control in Egypt?
EDIT: Also, what is Israel's population at this point?