Of lost monkeys and broken vehicles

This is the million dollar question for the regions political stability I think. Because as is Lebanon is set up for an inevitable conflict between its Christian and Muslim populations. A conflict that could become a proxy war between the potential pan Arab power and Israel/the Alawite state/others. I think there were some population movements mentioned but I don’t know how significant those were overall. I also don’t know if Lebanons Muslim population is at all changed in its disposition from otl.
Without mention that in such scenario the Kurds would likely to be involved, so as well as, that it would perhaps attract to many just licences Turks war veterans, that at least some of them, may found their way to the armies from some of the Syrian Arabs factions...
 
One potential result of this timeline is a more complete Israeli victory in 48. This may very well kean no Palestinian issue as an Israrli problem , and Israeli control of the region between the Jordan amd the sea. There will still be probably a couple of rounds of arab-israeli interstate wars, but once those are resolved the dynamics of the region will be diffrent.

I think it very likely. An Arab Kingdom composed of Iraq, inland Syria and Transjordan will be very threatening to the Alawites and Lebanese and most likely will try to gain the British Mandate of Palestine for both ideological and practical reasons - access to the Mediterranean. The only way to stop that rising empire is if Alawites, Lebanese, Kurds and Jews band together. France might see Israel as a unique opportunity to gain influence in a former british possession - after the British basically helped their client to get inland Syria. If France supports that alliance with arms and officers, then it has a pretty good chance of succeeding. Another question will be the border of the Kurdish State. The Hashemites might try their best to keep the Kurds away from access to the sea.
 
France might see Israel as a unique opportunity to gain influence in a former british possession - after the British basically helped their client to get inland Syria. If France supports that alliance with arms and officers, then it has a pretty good chance of succeeding
At this respect, I think that is worth to be noted the IOTL importance of the 1948 Attalene affair (plus declassified French official documents from the time), even if it would probably to be butterflied. Cause, it underscored both the links between, the Zionists and Jewish armed groups/organizations and the De Gaulle lead French government. Specifically the covert help that Georges Bidault, in charge of the French Republique foreign policy, provided, to thede Irgun, that, IIRC, was done in the context of his OTL policy of collaboration in Europe and rivalry/open competence with Britain, in the M. East...
Now, I wonder if ITTL situation would be so different to OTL and/or if De Gaulle would be so pissed off with London, that the aforementioned covert links would be strengthened and/or even perhaps, turned in an open alliance/collaboration first with the Zionists political and fighting groups and later with Israel...
Also, and finally, with respect to G. Bidauld, further down the line, 'd be noteworthy his historical position about Argelia and the OAS, one that lead him to his fall and to the exile in Brazil.
 
Another question will be the border of the Kurdish State. The Hashemites might try their best to keep the Kurds away from access to the sea.

Where would the Kurds even get access to the sea from? The only thing I can think of is if all of Northern Syria becomes Kurdistan they could split what was the Sanjak of Alexandretta with the Alawite state. Which could work and keep the entirety of the anti-Hashemite coalition connected. It’s hard to sea how the Kurds would make such an argument stick though considering the demographics.

was done in the context of his OTL policy of collaboration in Europe and rivalry/open competence with Britain, in the M. East...

Which I expect to be more rigorously followed ITTL since France isn’t quite as devastated and in a better position in the Middle East with Lebanon, the Alewites, and the Kurds. Since the treaty with Turkey isn’t in its final version yet I imagine that France is going to push hard to give some of what was the Sanjak of Alexandretta to the Alawites and for Kurdistan to be as big as possible as a counterweight to the Hashemites. I also see them pushing for Cyprus in its entirety to be given to Greece to weaken the British presence on that side of the Mediterranean.

Now, I wonder if ITTL situation would be so different to OTL and/or if De Gaulle would be so pissed off with London, that the aforementioned covert links would be strengthened and/or even perhaps, turned in an open alliance/collaboration first with the Zionists political and fighting groups and later with Israel...

I will note that TTL isn’t all that different from OTL’s Levant Crisis, although I don’t know if DeGaul said anything quite as harsh IOTL. They are in a better position to assist than otl though, particularly if Lebanon remains firmly in the French sphere. After all it’s a lot easier to smuggle arms through the northern border of Israel than it is to do it by boat.
 
Yeah so this is just mostly from otl, other than the Greek ships being in Anatolia.

There will be no peace in the Mid East isn't it? It is as per otl, but I really wonder what the hell is the Alawite state doing rn. Considering that it has been a thing for 20ish years I'd expect that the Alawites would have a lot to say about Syrian occupation, especially as Latakia and Iskenderun are nominally under the Alawite state before all this happened. I hope we see an Alawite revolt as the Syrians attempt to consolidate their new state. That would be an interesting divergence from otl...
Staying tight and hoping they don't end up invaded seems a reasonable summation. After all the Alawites population wise are massively outnumbered.
And I tought that was going to be per district - making a smaller Northern Ireland overall
Perfidious Albion being perfidious? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Now how Mike Collins deals with London trying to say "see the elections sorry!" remains to be seen.
I'm just surprised the Druze went with the Sunni Syrians on this one tbh, I would've thought that there would be animosity between the two groups
Not so surprising. Even back in 1925 the Great Syrian revolt begun from the Druzes.
Unfortunately it does seem France might back Soviet claims as a way to get even with the UK for this.
I think that may be a bit exaggerated as a reaction. After all De Gaulle said the very same things in OTL but at Paris
That is also true, but I think it is as per otl and the fact that they want the French out more than anything probably contributed to it, even if the two groups dislike each other.

I think Lascaris wants a Syrian independence that is quite close to otl for now. But having no mention of the Alawites is a bit disappointing. At least we could see the Druze collaborating...

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps France will back Greco-American designs on Cyprus as a result, where the Brits would hate the French for doing so but not jeopardising the united front of the WAllies.
Syrian independence at the moment has at least three notable differences from OTL...
I mean the Alawites aren’t specifically named but it does say the French troops remain in the Alawite state so I’m assuming they stayed loyal but neutral. The Druze and Non Lebanese Christian’s we’re big supporters of Syrian nationalism OTL. I’m curious if the eventual withdrawal from Lebanon and the Alewite state happens in this timeline. I could see France making a push to keep both in their sphere. And both have reason to stay with the hypothetical mega Hashemite kingdom on the horizon.
Even if the French and British metropolitan troops leave, you had a Syrian front for over 3 years TTL. The Lebanese had been an integral part of Free French divisions. TTL French influence within Lebanon should be even stronger than OTL .

One can hope that one of them is renamed Calypso and continues her career with new adventures.
At the moment the Greeks retired ships that date to WW1 and even earlier, the two wild beasts saw service in the first Balkan war.
One potential result of this timeline is a more complete Israeli victory in 48. This may very well kean no Palestinian issue as an Israrli problem , and Israeli control of the region between the Jordan amd the sea. There will still be probably a couple of rounds of arab-israeli interstate wars, but once those are resolved the dynamics of the region will be diffrent.
The Israelis have for certain a LOT more veteran troops they ended up the war with an entire division in the Balkans. So does the Arab Legion of course. But proportionally the Israelis have likely benefited more.
This is the million dollar question for the regions political stability I think. Because as is Lebanon is set up for an inevitable conflict between its Christian and Muslim populations. A conflict that could become a proxy war between the potential pan Arab power and Israel/the Alawite state/others. I think there were some population movements mentioned but I don’t know how significant those were overall. I also don’t know if Lebanons Muslim population is at all changed in its disposition from otl.
A little/ But likely the bigger impact are the tensions within Greater Syria which have been quite higher.
That said what makes up OTL South Lebanon is highly Muslim and would give Syria/the Hashemites access to the Mediterranean. Maybe a voluntary population swap as well?

That said I’m not sure how that would peaceably come about. The best bet would probably be for France, the English, and the US to work that out now but considering France is feeling pretty betrayed right now that’s hard to see without large concessions to cool their anger over Syria.
The French might have been exaggerating but I wouldn't taking any bets none in London entertained thoughts of expanding British influence in the Middle East. So workish that out any more than OTL looks to be quite unlikely.
Without mention that in such scenario the Kurds would likely to be involved, so as well as, that it would perhaps attract to many just licences Turks war veterans, that at least some of them, may found their way to the armies from some of the Syrian Arabs factions...
Europe is literally awash in combat veterans at the moment...
I think it very likely. An Arab Kingdom composed of Iraq, inland Syria and Transjordan will be very threatening to the Alawites and Lebanese and most likely will try to gain the British Mandate of Palestine for both ideological and practical reasons - access to the Mediterranean.
However reasonable Abdullah might have been, Jerusalem is still Jerusalem...
The only way to stop that rising empire is if Alawites, Lebanese, Kurds and Jews band together. France might see Israel as a unique opportunity to gain influence in a former british possession - after the British basically helped their client to get inland Syria. If France supports that alliance with arms and officers, then it has a pretty good chance of succeeding. Another question will be the border of the Kurdish State. The Hashemites might try their best to keep the Kurds away from access to the sea.
For the Kurds to get access to the sea they would need to push all the way to Alexandretta or Lattakia over non-Kurdish populations. Difficult to say the least particularly since the border with Turkey is still unsettled.
 
Staying tight and hoping they don't end up invaded seems a reasonable summation. After all the Alawites population wise are massively outnumbered.
Sure if you count all of Syria. But so is Lebanon...
Syrian independence at the moment has at least three notable differences from OTL...
With Lebanon and the Alawite state being more cooperative than otl, the Lebanese troops not deserting, and no Latakia incident?

Yeah those are very important incidents for Lebanon and the Alawite state. But the main threads of how Syria got its independence from France is still very close to otl.
A little/ But likely the bigger impact are the tensions within Greater Syria which have been quite higher.
With Lebanon seemingly being a lot more anti Pan-Arab and the fact that the Alawite state didn't go away yeah I definitely believe that, and if the Syrians try to occupy the Alawite state a more anti-Arab Lebanon and an Israel that wants an additional ally in the region can help the Alawite state regain their independence.
 
Perfidious Albion being perfidious? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Now how Mike Collins deals with London trying to say "see the elections sorry!" remains to be seen.

Especially since Churchill is no longer PM I could see the new government making the argument that they aren’t responsible for filling any promises the prior government may have made. Not that I think Collins would accept that but it’s probably the basis for a compromise county by county referendum instead of a complete hand over.

Syrian independence at the moment has at least three notable differences from OTL...

1. No Alawites
2. No Kurds
3. ?

Im not super familiar with Syrian independence so Im not sure what you’re referring to specifically.

Indeed, but at least for the Syrians looking for mercenaries/war veterans, the Turks ones are closer than the Europeans ones...

The Turkish veterans/mercenaries are more likely to sympathize with the cause of Syrian independence.
 
Im not super familiar with Syrian independence so Im not sure what you’re referring to specifically.
Yeah same but from what I read from wiki the main thing is the Lebanese Christians fighting for France instead of deserting not helping and no Latakia, with the Lebanese not helping being very very important.
 
Part 169
Potsdam, July 17th, 1945

Of the "big three" that had won the war against Germany only Joseph Stalin was present in the new inter-allied conference and still in power. Roosevelt was dead, Harry Truman having replaced him. Winston Churchill was present but so was Clement Attlee who after the landslide victory of the Labour party two weeks earlier was succeeding him as prime minister. Stalin would find the new American president rather less cooperative than his predecessor. But still progress could be made. Stalin would reconfirm his promise at Constantinople that the Soviet Union would join the war against Japan. The final borders of Poland and Germany and the fate of Constantinople were to be determined in the final peace treaty. Provisionally the Polish border was to move the Curzon line B in the east and the Oder-Eastern Neisse in the west. And the German populations outside Germany were to be moved to Germany in a "humane and orderly" manner.

Washington, July 19th, 1945


The US senate ratified the Breton-Woods system.

Paris, July 23rd, 1945


The trial of Philippe Petain begun. The claims of the old field marshal that the court did not have the right to try him were flatly ignored and would be sentenced to death on August 15th, the sentence commuted by De Gaulle to life imprisonment. Other German collaborators, who did not have Petain's illustrious past, would not be as lucky. Pierre Laval would be sentenced to death and actually executed for his treason against the republic.

Tokyo, July 28th, 1945


The Japanese government publicly announced her refusal to adhere to the Allied Potsdam declaration and unconditionally surrender.

Kokura, August 6th, 1945


The B-29 unleashed a single bomb over the city. Nearly 50,000 people would be killed. The Japanese government while shocked by the attack and the possession of nuclear weapons by the United States would remain determined to fight on.

Hiroshima, August 9th, 1945


The plutonium bomb detonated over the city killing over 86,000 people and wounding even more many of whom would like later.

Manchuria, August 9th, 1945


The Soviets had been moving troops and material from Europe virtually non-stop since the end of the war in Europe, moving over a million men to the Far East to replace the units that had been drawn to the Anatolian front in 1943, and further reinforce them nearly tripling the size of their forces in the region. At midnight close to 1.6 million Soviet and Mongolian soldiers would storm over the border. Japanese resistance would crumble almost immediately under the Soviet hammer blows.

Tokyo, August 15th, 1945


Japan surrendered to the Allies. It would take a few more days for recalcitrant elements within the Japanese government and armed forces to accept the inevitable and for the orders to surrender to reach all Japanese armies, fighting against the Soviets in Manchuria continuing for five more days, but the war was effectively over.

Vietnam, August 16th, 1945


The country had been proclaimed technically independent when emperor Bao Dai had unilaterally abrogated the treaty of protectorate with France back in March. The reality was that Bao Dai's was a puppet government under Japanese control. Now with Japan surrendering the Vietminh launched a general uprising hoping to both throw out Japanese control and preempt French return.

Jakarta, August 17th, 1945


Indonesia declared its independence. The next day Sukarno would be proclaimed president of the provisional government created by the rebels. The Dutch government would not take well to the declaration and accuse the Indonesian rebels of being Japanese collaborationists.

Washington, August 21st, 1945

With the war over Lend Lease aid was cut effectively immediately. Even though post May most Lend Lease to the European members of the Allies had been severely reduced if not cut off altogether it was yet another problem the embattled European economies had to deal with.

Spain, August 26th, 1945

The first elections in nearly and decade saw the Spanish Republican Union a broad coalition of the pre-war republican parties standing behind Ochoa secure 35.53% of the vote. On its right CEDA and its Catalan allies would secure 23.17% of the vote. To its left the socialist PSOE had secured 15,66% of the vote with the Republican Left getting 12.14%. The communist PCE would get 11.11% of the vote a vast increase over 1933 and 1936 but nowhere near what its general secretary Dolores Ibárruri had hoped or its right wing opponents had feared. Minor parties most notable among them the Trotskyite POUM and Basque and Galician nationalists had gained 2.4% of the vote. Ochoa would remain in power backed by a fragile coalition of CEDA, the Republican Union and PSOE as the newly elected assembly begun to draft a new Spanish constitution.

Baghdad, September 1st, 1945


The problem of the future of both Assyria and Kurdistan had been festering since 1942. By now king Abdullah recognized that the Kurdish terriitories of Iraq and Syria were a lost cause, the Kurds provisional government under Mustafa Barzani was militarily far stronger than his Arab Legion. And thus the king had taken advantage of the increase in his popularity from the intervention against the French in Syria to bite the bullet and recognize the independece of Kurdistan as his British advisors were pressing him to do. But the Assyrians were a different number. Back in 1942 the Assyrians were outnumbering his army. Now the reverse was the case. With the Kurds out of the picture and thhe British neutral Abdullah increased the pressure on the Assyrians offering them autonomy if they would recognize Arabian sovereignity. Otherwise his army would solve the issue. After all Abdullah had no interest in losing more oil production to a group of upstart Christians...
 
So, in term of actual news that aren't just carry overs or equivalents OTL:

I. The electoral campaign in Spain hasn't gone to the Communist way. If they can't get more then 11% in 1945 I can't see them having a real shot at power anytime soon...
II. And of course, things are already getting unpleasant in the Middle-East. I do get the sense that Abdulah, who was usually a fairly adept chess player, might be making of a blunder here. He hasn't gotten his hand on Syria yet, where some might be spooked by him going for a military solution and his ods of being accepted as king would diminish, and the Kurds might just wonder if he meant it when he recognized their independence. Moreover, I'd imagine that in the aftermath of ITTL WWII the West probably care more about the fate of the Middle-Eastern Christians then it generally did in OTL.
 
Last edited:
Kokura, August 6th, 1945

The B-29 unleashed a single bomb over the city.
I wonder what may possibly have changed, in the OTL US Military decision process about the final draw of Japanese cities to be targeted, for that ITTL, Kokura would have been the first to be targeted with the 'Little Boy', instead of Nagasaki, Niigata or even Hiroshima...
I. The electoral campaign in Spain hasn't gone to the Communist way. If they can't get more then 11% in 1945 I can't see them having a real shot at power anytime soon...

I think that while such percentage would get them a minority position if they would would manage to reach electoral or political agreements with the rest of the Left parties they would form a voting bloc with considerable influence. One that even with a parliamentarian majority. Ochoa's ruling coalition would have to consider or even depending on the Spanish Republic Constitution/electoral system for granting seat in the Spanish Cortes/Congress for the political parties, an key one...
 
I wonder what may possibly have changed, in the OTL US Military decision process about the final draw of Japanese cities to be targeted, for that ITTL, Kokura would have been the first to be targeted with the 'Little Boy', instead of Nagasaki, Niigata or even Hiroshima...
On that note, what would be interesting would be how Nagasaki ITTL would very much join Kyoto as a city full of (relatively) intact pre-war architecture.
 
Very interesting that they went for Kokura instead. It was a secondary target OTL so I could see something simple changing it like poor conditions over Hiroshima on the 6th, having it replace Nagasaki on the 9th.

Judging by what was written now at the Potsdam conference and during the Constantinople conference I believe Japan still has possession of the Kuril Islands and South Sakhalin as they weren’t invaded in august. Only Manchuria was. So Japan gets a big win for in the long run.

Spain is trying to put herself back on the right path. Hopefully it goes well for them.

The new border as I understand it leaves most of Lower Silesia to the Germans. That’s something like two and a half million people not being forced to move which will only be a good thing as Germany tries to deal with the massive influx of people they’re about to get thrown at them. Same for the Poles and Curzon line B

Vietnam and Indonesia are basically following OTL.

And then there’s the Assyrians. The smart choice would be to take the Autonomy offer. Because even if the Assyrians manage to fight off Abdullah they probably then just lose to the Kurds and have nowhere to run after spiting in the face of their other neighbor. If Abdullah is really only concerned with the oil than it will be a relatively hands off situation the Assyrians can enjoy. That’s a much better fate than OTL all things considered. Maybe the can even negotiate to gain custody of some other holy sites if Abdullah is feeling magnanimous like the Green Church in Iraq.
 
The new border as I understand it leaves most of Lower Silesia to the Germans. That’s something like two and a half million people not being forced to move which will only be a good thing as Germany tries to deal with the massive influx of people they’re about to get thrown at them. Same for the Poles and Curzon line B
On that note, these 2.5 million Germans and Silesia's resources would make the GDR a more powerful force long-term.
 
Potsdam, July 17th, 1945

Of the "big three" that had won the war against Germany only Joseph Stalin was present in the new inter-allied conference and still in power. Roosevelt was dead, Harry Truman having replaced him. Winston Churchill was present but so was Clement Attlee who after the landslide victory of the Labour party two weeks earlier was succeeding him as prime minister. Stalin would find the new American president rather less cooperative than his predecessor. But still progress could be made. Stalin would reconfirm his promise at Constantinople that the Soviet Union would join the war against Japan. The final borders of Poland and Germany and the fate of Constantinople were to be determined in the final peace treaty. Provisionally the Polish border was to move the Curzon line B in the east and the Oder-Eastern Neisse in the west. And the German populations outside Germany were to be moved to Germany in a "humane and orderly" manner.
I'm sure it will be terribly humane and executed with all the order the Soviet military and friends were renowned for, still with the borders being that much further east, the refugee crisis post-war is likely to be that much more... manageable? I wonder if that means the GDR will have somewhat less land in the west, i remember a couple of chapters ago it had mentioned the Germans had been holding the Elbe in the west...

Tokyo, August 15th, 1945
Vietnam, August 16th, 1945
Baghdad, September 1st, 1945
The war's finally over and everything's already on fire, time for the cold war I suppose! All that's left is where the lines fall on the map...

Speaking of lines on maps, I haven't posted any new rampant speculation for awhile! This might be one of the last for the thread honestly, maybe a couple during the cold war as things shake out, but the lines aren't going to be shifting all that much through the cold war I imagine...

RampantCWspeculationygspartitionedconsolodatedflag.png

Mostly smaller tweaks from the last time I posted but with some notable changes in regards to the last few chapters...

I put western-Germany down as unified because I can't be bothered to deal with occupation zones again, so I just slapped the Trizonesia flag over it, I gotta wonder how or if Western Germany turns out here if the border is at the Elbe... or if it turns a bit more German-Confederation-y? Or some sort of south-German state forms with Bavaria and Austria.

For the prospective GDR, I just thought it would look kind of silly for them to have Silesia but not at least some portion of Pomerania- so I'm hoping the Oder line gets tweaked just a bit... especially if the wallies are further east it'd make sense to me, and if Poland isn't getting Silesia I'd think they'd end up with the whole of Prussia in exchange. The Soviets are still getting gains in Anatolia so letting Poland have it shouldn't be too hard to swallow, especially with the comparative status of the Polish exiles, that and Lwow remaining Polish under Curzon B would probably smooth things over... somewhat. They've got the Baltics+Finland in their pocket now anyway, Kalliningrad likely doesn't change the calculus much.

I think we'll get a pretty nice looking Poland either way. On a map anyway, doesn't look like they're dodging Communism here...

Split Yugoslavia remains because I can't see that not erupting in flames, surprised it hasn't already to be honest...

I think Ireland and the UK might find some sort of compromise leading to a smaller Northern Ireland based on the last chapters, which will surely have knock-ons in the long run. I don't think the British can entirely renege on Churchill's deal, that would be rather... bad for relations with Ireland going forward. Especially should Britain find itself rather... busy elsewhere.

For Greece itself, just border tweaks with Bulgaria and a divided former Italian mandate in the south. While I do think Cannakale and western Constantinople are likely to end up Greek in the long run, I bet it runs out the 40's as a divided free city of some sort.

Anyway, I think this is my last shot at speculative mapping until the final peace is revealed at least...
 
Top