The North Star is Red: a Wallace Presidency, KMT Victory, Alternate Cold War TL

Le Van Vien will be the Pol Pot of this timeline.

An anti-communist Pol Pot who is also Vietnamese? Well that’s terrifying.

He seems to me more likeva Batista or Somoza. Maybe a Papa Doc if he goes insane.

Now that I think about it, Bay Vien does seem similar to Fulgencio Batista.

Yeah, Pol Pot is in his own special league of crazy. Honestly, a special league of crazy that I can't imagine anyone who has ever managed a major organization (including a mafia) would fall into. Killing 1/4th of your country in 3 years is uh, probably really close a record. No promises, but Cambodia will almost certainly be one of those countries that is better off ITTL.

And yes, good catch. Batista was one of the inspirations for Vien, since I don't think there's many great sources about his personality. So I'm trying to gauge his rule based on 1) how he rose to power (tacit French support, centered in the cities and dependent on international support) and 2) his background (ie, how would a mafia leader rule a country). I can't imagine he's crazy or incompetent, but he's clearly extremely kleptocratic and amoral.
 
Chapter 12 - 1950 UK Elections and the Two-Track NATO
I suspect my next update is actually going to be the Middle East.

1950 United Kingdom General Election and Two-Track NATO

The 1950 elections were less about the weakness of Labour than the reformation of the Conservatives. In fact, Prime Minister Attlee was still reasonably popular. However, the Conservatives had hammered out a complete agreement with the National Liberals, which ensured that the two parties would no longer divide their votes in any districts.

Churchill vociferously attacked Attlee over his conduct in the independence of Burma, claiming that Attlee had “turned over” Burma to Communism, while also decrying defense cuts that had been recently instituted. However, the campaign would largely waged over a different issue: British coal and steel.

Chiang Kai-Shek’s victory in the Chinese Civil War brought a huge windfall to British investors, as Britain was the largest investor in China before World War II. Many British investments that had horrifically tanked in value between 1937 and 1948 started springing back to life. The soaring economy vindicated the approach of Bevan, and the Attlee ministry rammed through various socialist measures, regularly overriding the House of Lords. The most contentious and unpopular was the nationalization of British coal and steel.[1]

In 1948, Chancellor of the Exchequer Cripps rejected calls to double-down on austerity and instead dramatically expanded state spending.[2] The Russel's administration expanded Marshall Plan aid, but the Netherlands spent most of it on the war in Indonesia. The financial contagion quickly spread to the Netherland’s closest trading partner, the United Kingdom, sparking a balance of payments crisis. In response, Cripps drastically cut back on spending. He was unapologetic, claiming that it was natural to spend in a period of economic recovery and cut back in times of prosperity. Indeed, the United Kingdom was much more prosperous in 1949 than it was in 1948, due to both the KMT windfall and Cripps’s counter-cyclical spending.

However, this was the worst political timing imaginable. Cripps looking for savings and unwilling to cut public housing, infrastructure, or healthcare, settled on cutting the military and coal subsidies. As a result, in the winter of 1949, British faced coal shortages just as the mines were nationalized. Although economists still debate the role nationalizations played, the public was convinced in 1950: coal nationalization was to blame.

9kUAdHm.png
The Tories soared back into power, putting Churchill back into the seat of power. The economy quickly recovered as coal and steel nationalizations were reversed, the new Russell administration dropped sanctions on the Netherlands, and the Conservatives ironically reaped all the benefits of Cripps’s public investments. Churchill also immediately hiked defense spending and fulfilled his campaign promise by deploying troops to Burma and Malaya to fight Communist insurgents.

Abroad, Churchill advocated increasing European integration and tightened relationships with the United States, finding a fellow spirit in American President Richard Russell, with whom he shared many attitudes with. His own papers indicated that Russell was receptive to Churchill’s vision of the world order, where the “Western” powers, chiefly United States, France, and Great Britain would continue to economically integrate, while leaving each other’s “sphere of influence” alone. In many ways, Churchill was a stronger influence on the American President than his own State Department, so did he revere the British statesman for his critical role in defeating Hitler.

In fact, it was under Churchill’s influence that the United States, France, United Kingdom, Portugal, Netherlands, and Belgium agreed to a corollary to Article 5 of NATO. The original Article 5 limited NATO's self-defense promise to national territories in Europe or North America. In contrast, the corollary did not limit the self-defense clause to attacks on national territory in Europe or North America, provided that another sovereign nation was the attacker. Portugal in particular immediately declared all of its overseas colonies as integral provinces, while the Netherlands declared all of its Indonesian possessions as “constituent countries.” The French similarly gained assurances that the member nations of the French Union were included. Churchill similarly shepherded the entry of Spain into NATO upon similar terms. Several nations, most notably Canada and Italy, refused to join the corollary, but most nations agreed.
---
[1] OTL, this was done in 1949. Here, it’s done in 1948, and comes into effect by Winter 1949.
[2] OTL, Cripps was forced by a balance of payments crisis to enact fiscal austerity. Here, the 1948 windfall from the KMT victory in the Civil War causes him to do the opposite. However, that just means the crisis hits later.
 
Last edited:
Have there been any border incidents between the ROC & the Viet Minh? Also is the Republic of China’s land force still called “the National Revolutionary Army”?
 
Have there been any border incidents between the ROC & the Viet Minh? Also is the Republic of China’s land force still called “the National Revolutionary Army”?

Yeah, presumably a few shootouts between KMT border troops and Viet Minh, though the Viet Minh probably quickly learns it's a waste of time fighting with the KMT.

And yeah, I doubt theydt change the name of the army that won WW2.
 
So, we have France getting its initial Indochinese federation working, a NATO more colonial defensive oriented, and Churchill winning but not by large, very interesting changes.
 
Chapter 19 - The Russell Doctrine in the Middle East
The Russell Doctrine in the Middle East (1950-1952)
The first major test of Russell’s administration in the Middle East was the Arabian crisis. Ibn Saud had threatened nationalization of the Arabian-American Oil Company (Aramco), a subsidiary of Standard Oil of California (Chevron), but indicated that he would accept a 50/50 split in oil profits, whereupon the U.S. Treasury would compensate Chevron.[1] This was a similar deal as agreed to by Wallace in 1948 with Venezuela’s Gallegos administration. However, Gallegos had been overthrown in a coup, and Russell’s liberal Treasury Secretary, Frances Perkin proved deeply hostile to the plan, viewing it as corporate welfare. Inspired by the Iranian nationalization of oil, Ibn Saud went forward with the nationalization of Aramco. Russell responded in rage, but respected Perkin’s refusal to give away billions of tax dollars to Chevron, viewing her as an ally on other issues. Russell immediately ordered the CIA to remove Ibn Saud with a more pliable figure. However, the CIA was unable to find anyone in the royal family to go against their respected patriarch.

One Arab expert, the CIA’s Kim Roosevelt, had an alternative idea. The Eastern Region of Saudi Arabia, where the bulk of Aramco’s oil fields and operations were located, was a predominantly Shia region conquered by Ibn Saud in 1922. Although sectarian tension was relatively weak in most of the Middle East at the time, brutalities in that conquest ensured that some remained in Saudi Arabia. The CIA made contacts with the Shia clergy (ulema) in the other region with some sectarian tension, Iraq. Some of these clergy had been radicalized by the brutal royal Iraqi suppression of figures in 1935. In particular, they found one radical but very well-connected Shia imam-in-training, the 23-year old Mohammad al-Husayni al-Shirazi (his father was the much more moderate Karbala-based Grand Ayatollah Mahdi Shirazi).[2] Roosevelt was also aware that the Shia clergy in Iran loathed Mossadegh.

The operation was approved by both President Russell and Prime Minister Churchill, who figured that sparking a sectarian war would push the Gulf monarchies closer to Britain and further pressure Iran. An army of CIA-trained (and thus shockingly well-armed) Iraqi Shia tribesman and several foreign mercenaries supposedly hired by Chevron (but actually by the CIA) stormed across Kuwait and into Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province. With superiority of arms, Shirazi’s forces set up the Islamic Republic of Qatif and Hasa. Although they found a random member of the Banu Khalid to act as a figurehead President, power was very much concentrated in Shirazi and his American backers.

Although the State Department totally disclaimed any involvement and blamed “corporate interests from California”, the weaponry used by the Qatifi army was too advanced to trick Ibn Saud. Although he was able to retrench most of the Saudi Army in Al-Hasa itself, he was unable to supply offensive equipment due to constant attacks on overland supply caravans by mercenary-piloted Junkers Ju-88 bombers.[3] Although the Saudi monarchy openly accepted the American excuse, they began making contact with Soviet operatives. Moreover, much of the Middle East exploded in antisemitic rage, as mainstream Arab opinion concluded that “President Russell and his Jew Baruch invaded a country on behalf of Israel” (Israel of course had no involvement).

Ironically, the Saudi rejection of a 50/50 split in oil profits more or less led to a 50/50 split in Saudi Arabia’s oil fields, except with less revenue for both sides due to the militarization of Eastern Arabia. Elsewhere in the Middle East, even though CIA officials were forbidden to aid Nasser, the Free Officers Movement still overthrew King Farouk, (temporarily) bringing Gamal Abder Nasser to power.
---
[1] IRL, Truman took this deal.
[2] OTL Mohammad Shirazi also became a Grand Ayatollah, but was sidelined in the Islamic Revolution by the relatively more moderate Ayatollah Khomeini.
[3] One of the most widely produced planes of the Luftwaffe, needless to say, Germany didn’t need them anymore.
 
Last edited:
What's happening domestically with Russel? With one of Jim Crow's strongest supporters in the White House, Civil Rights are halted with possibly some attempts at a reverse from Russell. This will swing the leadership of Civil Rights back to the Republican Party, and we might see an overall drift of Blacks to the GOP, at the very least making both parties competitive among the Black population. With Russell's horrible handling of foreign affairs, and the economic downturn from the loss of cheap Saudi oil, I don't think there's any way for the Democrats to win in '52 and whoever the Republicans pick will most likely win and dominate the 50's.
 
What's happening domestically with Russel? With one of Jim Crow's strongest supporters in the White House, Civil Rights are halted with possibly some attempts at a reverse from Russell. This will swing the leadership of Civil Rights back to the Republican Party, and we might see an overall drift of Blacks to the GOP, at the very least making both parties competitive among the Black population. With Russell's horrible handling of foreign affairs, and the economic downturn from the loss of cheap Saudi oil, I don't think there's any way for the Democrats to win in '52 and whoever the Republicans pick will most likely win and dominate the 50's.

Yes, domestic US politics are going to be very interesting. I might make that the next update.

As an aside though, the oil fields in Eastern Arabia were only discovered in 1948 (and output wasn't super high by 1950), so it would be less of a downturn and more of the windfall from cheap oil just never really happening.
 
Also how will pan-Arabism play out in this TL? With the whole crisis in the eastern Arabian peninsula I wonder how this affects the ideological movement. Also would Iran, a Shia nation, try to take advantage of this and claim Shia Arab areas for itself or even the Gulf States?
 
Also how will pan-Arabism play out in this TL? With the whole crisis in the eastern Arabian peninsula I wonder how this affects the ideological movement. Also would Iran, a Shia nation, try to take advantage of this and claim Shia Arab areas for itself or even the Gulf States?
I think for Shi'ism to guide Iranian foreign policy would need a political change on the scale of the Islamic Revolution. Also IIRC Saudi-Iranian relations back then weren't nearly as bad as they are today, and the two countries aren't seeking to undermine each other. It would make sense for Mossadegh, a staunch centre-left nationalist to recognize and act against the threat of Anglo-American (neo)imperialism, as well as for the Shah to recognize the threat posed to all independent states in the middle East. I think the Islamic and Western worlds are headed towards a confrontation, one that the American public may not necessarily appreciate.
 
Considering the situation in Europe and in the US, i am pretty sure the nationalisation of the Suez Canal won't end too well for him and egypt this time

At least the Saudis have been “cut down to size”.

This might lead to embarrassment to United States ITTL, supposedly as a country which values Freedom and democracy.

Also how will pan-Arabism play out in this TL? With the whole crisis in the eastern Arabian peninsula I wonder how this affects the ideological movement. Also would Iran, a Shia nation, try to take advantage of this and claim Shia Arab areas for itself or even the Gulf States?

I think for Shi'ism to guide Iranian foreign policy would need a political change on the scale of the Islamic Revolution. Also IIRC Saudi-Iranian relations back then weren't nearly as bad as they are today, and the two countries aren't seeking to undermine each other. It would make sense for Mossadegh, a staunch centre-left nationalist to recognize and act against the threat of Anglo-American (neo)imperialism, as well as for the Shah to recognize the threat posed to all independent states in the middle East. I think the Islamic and Western worlds are headed towards a confrontation, one that the American public may not necessarily appreciate.

Yes, I think I'm going to have to write a supplementary chapter on the geopolitical and diplomatic fallout of this. A tiny slice of coast that yet causes everyone so many headaches...
 
Chapter 19.5 - The Islamic Republic of Qatif and Hasa
The Islamic Republic of Qatif and Hasa

The Americans wildly underestimated how extreme Shirazi and many of his supporters would end up becoming. Not only was the young Shirazi naturally radical, many of those who rose up to govern the new nation had once chafed under Wahhabi ulema and were eager to flip the tables. Their rule was just as narrowly sectarian, worsened by the migration of the most extreme fringes of the Iranian clergy. A council of radical clergy replaced any secular authority, with theocratic councils, courts, and laws instituted. In Iran, the reaction among the ulema clergy was split. Some were happy to see a government “run by our own”, but others were embarrassed and horrified, viewing the Qatifi project as a Western conspiracy to protect oil interests. The ulema would quickly cleave into pro-Qatifi/American and anti-Qatifi/American factions, which bolstered the power of Prime Minister Mossadegh, who condemned the Qatifi secession and strove for close relations with a growing axis of nationalist powers, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, and Egypt.

Outside of perpetually neutral Oman, the British protectorates were vociferously opposed, but largely unable to express it within the confines of their British overlords. The Israelis were secretly jubilant at the Qatifi project, figuring that any Arab infighting would distract from Israel. However, they remained silent, knowing that any overt support would embarrass the Qatifis. Instead, the Mossad secretly steered as many anonymous arms shipments as possible in the direction of Qatifis, who declined to turn down free weapons from “mysterious friends.” Also supportive of the Qatifi project was the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Although King Abdullah's annexation of the West Bank was widely condemned by most neighbors and led to his near-assassination, the Britain, the United States, France, and various other Western powers all backed their claims, gaining some degree of influence.[1] The Hashemite Kingdom of Iraq strove to stay neutral, glad that many of Iraq’s most problematic Shia militants were being taken out of the country. However, the Qatifi government regularly called for violence against the Iraqi monarchy, so the Iraqis simply stayed neutral.

Saudi Arabia and the Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen (with had aims on British Aden) both drew very close to Nasser’s Egypt as soon as he took power. Cut off from the Persian Gulf, the Saudis focused their efforts on developing ports in the Red Sea, much like Egypt. Both countries clearly shared a grudge against the Western powers and complementary economies - Saudi Arabia had oil resources, but little in population and agriculture, while Egypt was the giant of the Arab world, but largely agricultural. Indeed, the close economic and military cooperation between Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt would only serve to raise the strategic importance of the Suez Canal to Egypt’s Nasser...
---
[1] OTL, only the UK recognized those claims. IITL, the UK is pretty good at convincing the US, so the US goes along with this and France follows. Also, this butterflies out his assassination.
 
Last edited:
Chapter 20 - The Russell-Taft Era
I was going to do North Japan or the Philippines, but I guess someone asked about this.

The Russell-Taft Era

Never had a man been viewed as overwhelming as a favorite for the presidency had Senate Majority Leader Robert Taft. Ironically, although the men knew each other when they served in the Senate together and personally liked each other, they would lock horns in acrimonious political warfare.

In addition, much of the left also had reason to despise him. When newly appointed Secretary of Defense Forrestal refused to stop the desegregation of the army, Russell had him unceremoniously fired and replaced with General Royall, whom Wallace earlier had fired from his cabinet for refusing to desegregate the army. A recess appointment was necessary, because the Republican Senate refused to confirm him. Only a threat from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, led by General Dwight Eisenhower, to resign en masse stopped Russell from re-segregating the army. Russell, although a segregationist, was one of the more moderate Southern Democrats (he supported Wallace in 1948), and remained content with simply indefinitely delaying active desegregation. Throughout this period, Russell’s approval rating remained stubbornly in the mid-30’s.

Taft in particular became an eloquent critic of Russell’s foreign policy, decrying American “weakness” towards communism as well as collaboration with “European colonial adventurism.” American public opinion was largely split on foreign party, but seemed to modestly favor Taft.[1] However, Taft’s promise to withdraw from NATO entirely seemed to perturb much of the Republican establishment. In addition, he also angered many liberals, by shutting down Senator Kefauver’s investigation of big business concentration and corruption, the former out of ideology, the latter out of a belief that it was simply a waste of time.[2] Kefauver raged against Taft and in solidarity, Russell offered to make Kefauver his Vice-President. Seeing no hope for his agenda in the Senate, Kefauver accepted and consistently used his position to harangue the Senate. A double-Southerner presidential ticket indicated to most observers at the time that the Democrats were heading towards being murdered outside of the South.

The Republican Congress, especially in 1951, was one of the most productive in American history, driven heavily by Taft’s scheduling of votes on all kinds of legislation that the either the liberal or conservative wing of the Democratic Party had no choice to vote for. Four bills in particular stood out: the Civil Rights Act of 1951, which mandated immediate desegregation of the army and other provisions, the Housing Act of 1951[3], which mandated the widespread construction of public housing, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1951[4], which would have abolished racial restrictions on immigration, and the Tax Cuts Act of 1952, which would have slashed tax rates. The Taft Congress also voted to repeatedly repeal most of the Russell laws. President Russell vetoed all of these, easily blowing past Wallace's already record veto-count. Although Taft and Russell did work together on several bills of relatively low public controversy (such expanding the GI bill, creating the CIA and NSF, and dramatically increasing refugee admissions from Europe, and US humanitarian aid abroad), they tended not to brag their own group of supporters about those bills.

However, the presidential (re)election of both men would hit a snag. First, more internationalist and moderate Republicans sought to draft an opponent to the non-interventionist, anti-New Deal Taft. Their first choice was Dwight Eisenhower, but he declined to run against a man he was serving under. Instead, they settled on a quickly popular second choice: Douglas MacArthur. MacArthur castigated Taft as an isolationist who would roll back the New Deal, while Taft reveled in those attacks, castigating MacArthur as a “lunatic socialist tyrant-in-waiting.”

In contrast, few in the Democratic Party wanted to challenge Russell. First, Russell’s standing among many Democrats had improved due to his constant defense of the Russell laws (namely healthcare). Second, most of his serious contenders figured he was a doomed candidate. The Democrats had controlled the White House for 20 years. Republicans were ascendent in Congress and statehouses around the nation. And the President was unpopular. Most senior Democrats concluded there was no point to try to defeat Russell and if they injured him in a primary, they'd be blamed for President Robert Taft repealing Russellcare. Third, Russell’s most serious potential challenger, Estes Kefauver, was mollified by Russell’s total support on the issues of antitrust and corruption. The firebrand liberal Senator from Paul Douglas, finding it impossible to convince Kefauver to run against his President, ultimately challenged Russell himself on a platform of civil rights and foreign policy non-interventionism.
---
[1] KMT victory means a much weaker/delayed Red Scare. A lot of OTL American anti-colonialism was partly motivated by strategic anti-Communism. It's not just the Churchill-Russell relationship, although that's a part of it, but also just less interest in the entire State Department in anti-colonialism.
[2] Pretty much dooms the Kefauver Antitrust Act.
[3] Similar to the OTL Housing Act of 1949 supported by Taft.
[4] Similar to the OTL INA of 1952 supported by Taft.
 
Last edited:
Top