The third republic will negotiate I can picture an otonomous Indochina with defence agreement and strong economic ties with France. It is better then a communist regime. The french have nothing to prove here. And the Algeria case is differend but I think all will go peacefully here as well maybe the french colonist would go violent. And if there is a revolt don't forget that here France has the mean to put it down.
WI: French press Saar Offensive
- Thread starter Equuleus
- Start date
Re: Congo
I'm reading Congo, A History right now and the road to independence was....interesting to put it mildly. It's pretty clear that the Second World War had a significant (if not deciding) impact. The Force Publique was send overseas, the colony was economically mobilised (with a pretty big impact on the standard of living of the natives) and it caused the decolonisation of Africa in the '50s and '60s. ITL there is no World War so that get's rid of most of the independence movement. I really really doubt that Congo is going to be among the first nations to reach independence. Pushing it to the late '70s or even the '80s isn't implausible.
Re: the Netherlands
If the Netherlands isn't involved in this TLs World War then it will seem like another victory for neutrality. It kept the country out of both World Wars so it will almost certainly stay on that path.
Like in the case of Congo the path to independence for the Dutch East Indies is dramatically altered. There had been a communist uprising in the 30s but that was supressed pretty easily. What did it in for the colony was the German occupation of the Netherlands and more importantly, the Japanese occupation of the Dutch East Indies. After the Japanese surrender there was absolute chaos throughout the archipelago, Sukarno and other nationalists had been given the chance to organize themselves and the KNIL was starved in POW camps. All this hasn't happened ITL. There might be local uprising in Atjeh or on Java but we will not see a revolution on the scale of OTL. There will certainly not be a 'Indonesia' as we know it because if there will be decolonisation it will be within the Kingdom and not on the Nationalist agenda. Seperate states on the scale of as Borneo, the Moluccans and East Java seem likely, within the Kingdom.
I'm reading Congo, A History right now and the road to independence was....interesting to put it mildly. It's pretty clear that the Second World War had a significant (if not deciding) impact. The Force Publique was send overseas, the colony was economically mobilised (with a pretty big impact on the standard of living of the natives) and it caused the decolonisation of Africa in the '50s and '60s. ITL there is no World War so that get's rid of most of the independence movement. I really really doubt that Congo is going to be among the first nations to reach independence. Pushing it to the late '70s or even the '80s isn't implausible.
Re: the Netherlands
If the Netherlands isn't involved in this TLs World War then it will seem like another victory for neutrality. It kept the country out of both World Wars so it will almost certainly stay on that path.
Like in the case of Congo the path to independence for the Dutch East Indies is dramatically altered. There had been a communist uprising in the 30s but that was supressed pretty easily. What did it in for the colony was the German occupation of the Netherlands and more importantly, the Japanese occupation of the Dutch East Indies. After the Japanese surrender there was absolute chaos throughout the archipelago, Sukarno and other nationalists had been given the chance to organize themselves and the KNIL was starved in POW camps. All this hasn't happened ITL. There might be local uprising in Atjeh or on Java but we will not see a revolution on the scale of OTL. There will certainly not be a 'Indonesia' as we know it because if there will be decolonisation it will be within the Kingdom and not on the Nationalist agenda. Seperate states on the scale of as Borneo, the Moluccans and East Java seem likely, within the Kingdom.
Interesting points on Congo. Was there a significant Belgian population there, even if centred in the Brazzaville. Also how widespread was the colonial government and the french (or dutch) language for that matter. Was it administered bilingually or in one language?
re Dutch Neutrality. I tend to agree with you, Netherlands would be proud of its neutral status. Perhaps post fall of communism they might consider stronger ties with the Entente Europeenne but until then it threatens their neutrality.
re Dutch East Indies. Sounds interesting, I understand there was a significant Dutch population in Batavia (OTL Jakarta). I think we would definately see Indonesia balkanised if the Dutch don't look at a smooth transition to independence. IMO I think West Irian Jaya is definately gone and probably places like Borneo and Bali too. Whether Sumatera is going to the only thing remaining of Indonesia I'm not so sure on.
If the situation degenerates too much could be a useful area of communist china to sponsor local rebellions.
re Dutch Neutrality. I tend to agree with you, Netherlands would be proud of its neutral status. Perhaps post fall of communism they might consider stronger ties with the Entente Europeenne but until then it threatens their neutrality.
re Dutch East Indies. Sounds interesting, I understand there was a significant Dutch population in Batavia (OTL Jakarta). I think we would definately see Indonesia balkanised if the Dutch don't look at a smooth transition to independence. IMO I think West Irian Jaya is definately gone and probably places like Borneo and Bali too. Whether Sumatera is going to the only thing remaining of Indonesia I'm not so sure on.
If the situation degenerates too much could be a useful area of communist china to sponsor local rebellions.
Significant is relative ofcourse. I'm not sure on the numbers to be honest. What you have to realize is that at independence there were 16 (six-teen) native university graduates, who had studied things such a psychology because the government was afraid of subversion. There was a decent healthcare system with plenty of native nurses but almost all the doctors were Belgian. The Force Publique was organized effectively with good cadre but all the officers were Belgian.
French was the language of the colonial government. Dutch only became a factor within the Belgian bureacracy after the World War really.
Again significant is relative
There were certainly ethnic groups that were very loyal to the Crown such as the Moluccans. The thing is that ITL the Netherlands was forced to accept Indonesia because of:A: International pressure. This is not an issue here except for maybe Japanese interference (probably countered by UK/France)
B: The fact that they had to start from scratch again. Again, not an issue because it's in control of the colony.
C: The Dutch government tried to placate the Nationalists so that Indonesia would stay within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, forced down that route by causes A and B.
ITL you will probably something like Francafrique but more official. So the multiple states emerging out of the DEI (atleast 5 I think) will be autonomous but always with the KNIL in the neighbourhood incase the Nationalists start to act funny.
That's very much possible, especially in parts like Atjeh were there is a true resisting spirit.
French as the colonial language is actually beneficial particularly considering that France ITL will be managing its decolonisation as well. Perhaps joint decolonisation project. Also I understand that Belgian Congo was a relatively industrialised area (for Africa) and an early source of uranium (can anyone confirm that?). There might be some kind of joint infrastructure project to link parts of French Equatorial Africa with Belgian Congo.
Again significant is relative
A: International pressure. This is not an issue here except for maybe Japanese interference (probably countered by UK/France)
B: The fact that they had to start from scratch again. Again, not an issue because it's in control of the colony.
C: The Dutch government tried to placate the Nationalists so that Indonesia would stay within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, forced down that route by causes A and B.
ITL you will probably something like Francafrique but more official. So the multiple states emerging out of the DEI (atleast 5 I think) will be autonomous but always with the KNIL in the neighbourhood incase the Nationalists start to act funny.
How sustainable are autonomous kingdoms within the Dutch sphere as opposed to independent nations that are friendly to Netherlands? It just seems that with at least 5 autonomous regions there's a recipe for conflict in the area and some of those states will have different opinions on neighbouring nations (ie, Malaysia, Singapore, Papua New Guinea). On PNG, would their claims to West Irian Jaya be upheld? IMO a balkanised Indonesia would be hard pressed to resist a determined effort to unify the island.
I think Beijing would be keen to promote Chinese Communism in all colonial areas. In OTL Mao was willing to accept Soviet Communism primacy in industrialised/proleterian societies in exchange for recognition of Chinese Communism primacy in agricultural/peasant societies. If Moscow compromises on this point you could see a joint effort to promote communism in all colonies. Its success/failure imo would depend on the following:
1. The willingness of the colonial powers to confront it; and
2. Recognition from the colonial powers that decolonisation is inevitable and therefore the handing over of real and tangible power to locals with firm timelines and goals in place.
Failure to do at least those two things and try to stubbornly hold on will only strengthen the communist cause. Once popular momentum builds it is very difficult to hold it back.
Last edited:
Industrialised as in factories and stuff I don't think so. The wealth of Congo has always been in the ground. It was indeed a early source of uranium.
With 'within the kingdom' I mean the current system that is in place in the Netherlands: There is the Kingdom of the Netherlands which encompasses the states of the Netherlands (mainland), Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten. The Kingdom is responsible for the Foreign Affairs, Defense and some economical and domestic affairs. The same thing could be used in the DEI.
West Papua is a special case in the sense that it just couldn't be made independent in 1949. The only reason there was an attempt to make it independent in 1960 is because the Dutch wanted to keep it out of the hands of Sukarno. I doubt independence (or even the same autonomy as the rest of the archipelago) would be considered before the '80s. It would also serve as springboard for Dutch powerprojection in the archipelago.
The way I see this construction is that the Kingdom keeps control over Foreign Affairs and Defense (informally ofcourse also significant economic control through Shell, BPM and the likes). Any conflicts with Malaysia are unlikely given that the OTL Konfrontasi was not much more then a fabrication of Sukarno.
Agreed, with the caveat that some ethnic groups will almost always stay loyal and that Chinese involvement might (like it did in Malaysia OTL) cause those revolts to fail as it could be seen as Chinese revolts instead of by the whole population.
I see some factors that need to be considered. One, U.S. makers don't have the cash infusion of war production. Two, they don't have the high-demand era of the '50s, when they could build any kind of junk & have it sell, so there's less tarnish on reputations. Three, European makers don't have their factories devestated, so they aren't starting fresh with all-new tooling.
There's also a lack of war-surplus vehicles; how important that is, IDK. I have a hunch VW would never resume civilian production & the Type 1 would remain a peculiar German rarity. Might be the KG is a Porsche, tho (instead of the 356?), rather than a VW.
Why? It's unlkely TTL the Japanese see weakness of France, Britain, or the Netherlands, let alone see enough to feel enabled to strike at their colonies in SEA. That being true, war with them, & consequently the U.S., is exceedingly unlikely. With Germany clearly under control, the pressure for U.S. intervention is dramatically reduced, & action against Japan, or in aid of China, was very much less than pressure for action against Germany. It wasn't trivial, true, but there was strong sentiment in opposition to war. Did FDR want to aid China? Certainly. Did he want to do it even if it meant war with Japan? No, not AFAIK.
On nuclear weapons, given the cost & difficulty of developing them, I have to wonder if they won't wait much longer for even Britain or France to bother. There's no immediate threat & no war in progress to justify it. Moreover, I find it very difficult to believe Japan has the industrial capacity to produce nukes on her own. (If Britain or France did it, I wouldn't be suprised by Japanese espionage stealing the essential secrets, tho.) If we're adding candidates, tho, I'd nominate Israel (if it exists...) & South Africa. I might also nominate Canada, as a Brit partner in developing them. (This might spark the U.S. program...
)I don't see that as inevitable. As I understand it, Stalin didn't trust Mao much & was willing to make a deal with Chiang.
Agreed. Any thoughts on who'd be in charge in Vietnam? (Safe bet Nguyen Sinh Cung, aka Ho, gets a bullet in the ear.)
I can't tell you where, but I've read Chiang was willing to make fairly substantial territorial concessions. He considered the Communists a greater threat than Japan. Could he have gotten the KMT Army entirely onside? IDK. Would he have gone after Japan later, after defeating Mao? IDK, but it's more interesting than most of the usual crop of options offered in TLs.
As I understand it, the oil embargo only started after Japan decided she could get away with occupying all of IndoChina, & that was because of the fall of France. That doesn't obtain here, so the oil embargo doesn't, either, IMO. Now, Japan wanted control of IndoChina as a way to cut off China, & did pressure Britain to deny supplies, which was agreed to because of the war in Europe. Given that's over TTL, it's likely neither that nor any possible occupation of IndoChina happens. Does Japan still take a bellicose approach to the Dutch for oil TTL? I have a hunch she won't, because the European war is over. If she does, you get the usual outcome: war in the Pacific. Except, in this instance, without Lend-Lease & Neutrality Patrol (& the subsequent strong, but wrong, impression in Japan of U.S.-Brit inseparability), the likelihood of an attack on Pearl Harbor, or the P.I., is drastically reduced.
It's just as likely IMO KTA gets stupid again.
I will confess ignorance on Algeria. I mean to suggest France could give up "colonies" by granting both IndoChina & Algeria a commonwealth-type status & avoid fighting. Whether she would, IDK.
I think it's entirely possible nukes would be used: they're just "gooks", after all.
(So the argument would run, I'm sure.) I don't think nukes arrive in time TTL, tho.True.
Were I Tokyo, I'd tell Chiang, "Go ahead & fight 'em, they're getting nothing more from us.", & if any of the officers set foot in Japan, arrest 'em. I don't see either happening.Again true.
I have never understood that transformation. Did the hammering they took at Nomonhan really accomplish that much?
If so, it might mean Japan is satisfied to leave SU, Britain, France, & the U.S. alone, & just try & finish the fight in China. Presuming Stalin provides aid, I picture Chiang wins, then destroys the CCP.
Last edited:
New Maps
I've been working on this timeline and made some important revisions. After several months absence on it a fresh pair of eyes have given me a new perspective. I've engineered one of the butterflies of the POD that the Polish Armed Forces better positions their army behind defensive positions. This is not too difficult to imagine given it was the advice the High Command gave in OTL, but for political reasons it was not desirable to withdraw from the border regions. Poland's biggest fear was that the West would seek a separate peace treaty with Germany. In TTL I will make Reynaud strengthen the alliance further by providing an iron-clad territorial integrity guarantee as well.
Please see some maps I've been making. The first is the immediate situation post the war in Europe. The second during the 2nd Russo-Japanese War and the third the aftermath of that war.
I was enjoying creating the Far East so much that I toyed with an alternate ending to the 2nd Russo-Japanese War and Chinese Civil War. I do not think that the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-Shek could win the civil war, certainly not after the Russians intervened and provided strategic support to the communists. I had originally envisaged that the Communists would win the civil war outright and become close allies with Russia. Without WW2 as we know it, Moscow would go to great lengths to maintain the alliance with Beijing, particularly in TTL as China would be Russia's only real ally.
However this outcome is by no means certain. The politics will be complicated, but in TTL we have Japan at war with Russia. The two will be concentrating one another and whilst Japan would be supreme at sea, there is no mistaking that on land Russia would prevail. This leaves the problem of Nationalist China. The Japanese have been at war with them for years and there is no love lost between the two sides. But, if they do not put aside their differences the entire country will be lost to the communists and/or the Russians. So questions:
1) Is Tokyo pragmatic enough to recognise this?; and
2) Will Chiang Kai-Shek go for it?
Any potential alliance will need the Japanese to recognise they have lost China, which will be a hard pill to swallow.
The 1950 map posts this hypothetical outcome in which Japan switches its support to the Nationalists to prevent a communist takeover. There is also assistance from the west in terms of supplies and intelligence. The Japanese are eventually ejected from the continent in Manchukuo and Korea. The real war is fought between the communists and the nationalists with Russia and Japan. With an increasing amount of support coming from the West and Japan the nationalists are successful in holding back the communists but not pushing any further. After several years of fighting a peace summit is called in which the former Japanese puppets of Manchukuo and Korea are given independence as communist states (Manchukuo becomes the Peoples Republic of Manchuria). Mengkukuo is absorbed into Greater Mongolia as the lands are traditionally considered to be Mongolian. The peace treaty also calls for the cessation of hostilities and the recognition of the independence of the remainder of China. Japan has lost its mainland holdings but gains recognition of Sakhalin and retains Formosa (Taiwan).
I'd appreciate any thoughts on this scenario as I'm quite agnostic to the outcome. I find a balkanised China quite interesting, and of course a persistent Tibet is good too. But I'm not altogether too sure the nationalists could survive, particularly as it would rely on Japanese cooperation which I find difficult to see forthcoming. Also the Red Army will continue to get better and better.
I've been working on this timeline and made some important revisions. After several months absence on it a fresh pair of eyes have given me a new perspective. I've engineered one of the butterflies of the POD that the Polish Armed Forces better positions their army behind defensive positions. This is not too difficult to imagine given it was the advice the High Command gave in OTL, but for political reasons it was not desirable to withdraw from the border regions. Poland's biggest fear was that the West would seek a separate peace treaty with Germany. In TTL I will make Reynaud strengthen the alliance further by providing an iron-clad territorial integrity guarantee as well.
Please see some maps I've been making. The first is the immediate situation post the war in Europe. The second during the 2nd Russo-Japanese War and the third the aftermath of that war.
I was enjoying creating the Far East so much that I toyed with an alternate ending to the 2nd Russo-Japanese War and Chinese Civil War. I do not think that the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-Shek could win the civil war, certainly not after the Russians intervened and provided strategic support to the communists. I had originally envisaged that the Communists would win the civil war outright and become close allies with Russia. Without WW2 as we know it, Moscow would go to great lengths to maintain the alliance with Beijing, particularly in TTL as China would be Russia's only real ally.
However this outcome is by no means certain. The politics will be complicated, but in TTL we have Japan at war with Russia. The two will be concentrating one another and whilst Japan would be supreme at sea, there is no mistaking that on land Russia would prevail. This leaves the problem of Nationalist China. The Japanese have been at war with them for years and there is no love lost between the two sides. But, if they do not put aside their differences the entire country will be lost to the communists and/or the Russians. So questions:
1) Is Tokyo pragmatic enough to recognise this?; and
2) Will Chiang Kai-Shek go for it?
Any potential alliance will need the Japanese to recognise they have lost China, which will be a hard pill to swallow.
The 1950 map posts this hypothetical outcome in which Japan switches its support to the Nationalists to prevent a communist takeover. There is also assistance from the west in terms of supplies and intelligence. The Japanese are eventually ejected from the continent in Manchukuo and Korea. The real war is fought between the communists and the nationalists with Russia and Japan. With an increasing amount of support coming from the West and Japan the nationalists are successful in holding back the communists but not pushing any further. After several years of fighting a peace summit is called in which the former Japanese puppets of Manchukuo and Korea are given independence as communist states (Manchukuo becomes the Peoples Republic of Manchuria). Mengkukuo is absorbed into Greater Mongolia as the lands are traditionally considered to be Mongolian. The peace treaty also calls for the cessation of hostilities and the recognition of the independence of the remainder of China. Japan has lost its mainland holdings but gains recognition of Sakhalin and retains Formosa (Taiwan).
I'd appreciate any thoughts on this scenario as I'm quite agnostic to the outcome. I find a balkanised China quite interesting, and of course a persistent Tibet is good too. But I'm not altogether too sure the nationalists could survive, particularly as it would rely on Japanese cooperation which I find difficult to see forthcoming. Also the Red Army will continue to get better and better.
Second map circa 1945, in the midst of the 2nd Russo-Japanese War and Chinese Civil War.
Third map, circa 1950. The aftermath of the 2nd Russo-Japanese War and Chinese Civil War. Also includes the formation of the Fascist International Alliance.
Bump.
Is there no insight into this hypothetical in the Far East? I actually did a little more research and discovered that Stalin had originally pressed Mao to negotiate with Chiang Kai-Shek and not to seize power. He abandoned that idea when Chiang Kai-Shek objected to his annexing of Tannu Tavu. The scenario is still in many ways unlikely because I just find it too difficult to see Imperial Japan willing to assist the nationalists, or the nationalists from accepting Japanese assistance. Furthermore a communist china is not in the interests of any of the western powers either. Without ww2 as we know it Stalin may decide to act cautiously.
P.S. What are the chances of an independent Sinkiang in this scenario? I note that Russia had already setup a puppet East Turkistan Republic that folded to the communist chinese after the civil war, but in this scenario they could potentially endure.
Is there no insight into this hypothetical in the Far East? I actually did a little more research and discovered that Stalin had originally pressed Mao to negotiate with Chiang Kai-Shek and not to seize power. He abandoned that idea when Chiang Kai-Shek objected to his annexing of Tannu Tavu. The scenario is still in many ways unlikely because I just find it too difficult to see Imperial Japan willing to assist the nationalists, or the nationalists from accepting Japanese assistance. Furthermore a communist china is not in the interests of any of the western powers either. Without ww2 as we know it Stalin may decide to act cautiously.
P.S. What are the chances of an independent Sinkiang in this scenario? I note that Russia had already setup a puppet East Turkistan Republic that folded to the communist chinese after the civil war, but in this scenario they could potentially endure.
Getting back to the original premise of the thread.
The Germans ran out of artillery ammunition in Poland and had 27 divisions in the west facing 100 French divisions. Most of the captured German generals after the war stated that had the French invaded the poorly defended Saar, Germany would have collapsed for lack of military industry, while allied industrial capabilities would have increased considrably.
Goering was in charge of production, with Todt under him and despite having plenty of supplies and manpower and not being bombed before the war, they did a dismal job in munitions and equipment production, so that Hitler started the war competely ill equipped (even with a ridiculous number of submarines).
The Allies had better armor and guns in their tanks. While the German tanks were better coordinated with radios, they were extremely vulnerable even to the very portable and flat shooting 25 mm Hutchkiss gun, so the German tanks would have been much less useful in defensive operations. The Germans did not have enough guns, etc, for two fronts.
The combined French, British and Canadian industries and Indian, Canadian, Australian, British and French armies and navies were formidable and their air forces were rapidly improving with superios spitfires and large numbers of Hurricanes produced faster than German planes.
A strong French attack (as previously agreed in writing by Gamelin) would have probably disuaded Stalin from invading Poland. Moreover, it may have induced Romania to join the allies (as in WW I), making an enormous difference, since that would have allowed access for allied fighters and fuel into Poland and introduced a large Romanian army with good artillery (the Romanian army had more cannon at the start of Barbarossa than the German army).
In short, Hitler would have been stopped in his tracks. As in Austria and Czechoslovakia, Hitler only prospered thanks to excessive allied caution.
The Germans ran out of artillery ammunition in Poland and had 27 divisions in the west facing 100 French divisions. Most of the captured German generals after the war stated that had the French invaded the poorly defended Saar, Germany would have collapsed for lack of military industry, while allied industrial capabilities would have increased considrably.
Goering was in charge of production, with Todt under him and despite having plenty of supplies and manpower and not being bombed before the war, they did a dismal job in munitions and equipment production, so that Hitler started the war competely ill equipped (even with a ridiculous number of submarines).
The Allies had better armor and guns in their tanks. While the German tanks were better coordinated with radios, they were extremely vulnerable even to the very portable and flat shooting 25 mm Hutchkiss gun, so the German tanks would have been much less useful in defensive operations. The Germans did not have enough guns, etc, for two fronts.
The combined French, British and Canadian industries and Indian, Canadian, Australian, British and French armies and navies were formidable and their air forces were rapidly improving with superios spitfires and large numbers of Hurricanes produced faster than German planes.
A strong French attack (as previously agreed in writing by Gamelin) would have probably disuaded Stalin from invading Poland. Moreover, it may have induced Romania to join the allies (as in WW I), making an enormous difference, since that would have allowed access for allied fighters and fuel into Poland and introduced a large Romanian army with good artillery (the Romanian army had more cannon at the start of Barbarossa than the German army).
In short, Hitler would have been stopped in his tracks. As in Austria and Czechoslovakia, Hitler only prospered thanks to excessive allied caution.
Last edited:
I don't think Stalin would be dissuaded; he was primarily focused on the German Invasion of Poland, which would succeed even with the war in the West. Once the Poles were exhausted fighting Germany he was going to invade, and even with Germany defeated the Allies likely wouldn't immediately declare war without negotiating first.
It's hard to predict his actions in this hypothetical. Whilst he could quite easily do what you say, in the circumstances of a rapidly collapsing German western front I'm not certain he will act. He has a lot to lose by invading Poland, a firm western ally in TTL, for little true gain. He would be much safer and more profitable by moving against the Baltic states and Finland, where he is almost assured of non intervention. Of course in the case of Finland it exposes the deficiencies of his army.
I admit my scenario is almost centred around his inaction. A stronger Premier of France may have prevented his intervention. But that is by no means certain. Also if we throw in Archytas' proposal of Romanian intervention then it strengthens the argument for soviet non intervention even more.
It's also one of the reasons I think he would attack Japan in the east after things settled down. The international pariah state is not going to get any sympathy after the atrocities committed in China. It will also allow him to gain a useful ally in the east and perhaps with a different leader coming to power after him (Molotov?) the alliance with Beijing will be preserved.