A Blunted Sickle - Thread II

Again, I very much doubt that events in this TL would develop in this way in the second half of 1941. Probably in the summer there will be a Soviet invasion of the weakened Reich and it will deal them a decisive blow.

I don't see how this addresses my point which is questioning what time period you mean by is.

If you really want me to address this new point considering the Reich's defeat only become obvious after the Entente's summer campaign of 1941 Stalin would not be ready by summer 1941 as he would have viewed the war as still up in the air.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
A lot of assumptions that do not have to come true, many based on very weak foundations. You ignore the fact that despite the huge defeats suffered in the summer of 1944, the loss of France, Belgium and access to Romanian oil, the Germans fought hard for 8 more months. American psychologists studying German POWs captured in the fall of 1944 were amazed that their will to fight even increased! So all these assumptions about a 1918-like collapse of Germany are fairy tales. The Third Reich, unlike the Second, was a totalitarian state, all opposition except for a small group of officers and aristocrats was destroyed and society was very strongly indoctrinated. Public opinion polls in occupied Germany (collected in the work entitled "Public opinion in occupied Germany. The OMGUS Surveys 1945-1949") showed that "37% (surveyed - ed.) denied that »The Holocaust of Jews and Poles and other non-Aryans was not necessary to ensure the security of Germany” and that 52% agreed (with the opinion – ed.) that “territories such as Danzig, the Sudetenland and Austria should be part of Germany proper”. More than half also agreed with the statement that "National Socialism was a good idea, but badly implemented." A year after the war was completely lost... So it's not surprising that the conspirators who tried to overthrow the NSDAP regime in July 1944 found no support, and many were captured by the Gestapo on the basis of common people's denouncements.

You also ignore the fact that Allied strategy in the early stages of this war was static. No major offensives were planned in 1940. The Allies were keen to avoid the horrific losses of the previous war at all costs, so I have no doubt that they themselves would have sought to win Stalin over to their side. In early 1940, they tried to win even Mussolini and Franco to their side, so why not the Soviet leader? The entire British strategy was based on the (correct) belief that the arrangement between Germany and the USSR was temporary and that conflict would eventually arise between them. And Stalin himself would certainly not fail to take advantage of the fall of Germany as soon as he noticed its first symptoms. Several million soldiers were permanently stationed in the western regions of the USSR. Opposite them, the Germans, setting out to conquer France, left only 14 infantry divisions in occupied Poland.
I strongly recommend you actually read the thread and respond to the "in Universe" T/L or move to a different thread. Thread is over 6,000 posts, it is unreasonable to expect the author to rewrite the entire work to match OTL (which would actually rather defeat the whole "AH" part of the Board)
 
In fact the South Africa butterflies are a very, very, interesting development. It shows there is s lot of work to do to really understand how this World will evolve
South Africa really could go either way, as has been said Smuts won 1943 election in OTL and there is nothing that has happened that will make that less likely. The question is what does the UP do in power when they haven't got the distraction of a war and the subsequent recovery?

The really big change would be something entirely unsexy and unexciting, namely putting some honest people on the Delimitation Commission so the electoral boundaries are not so utterly rigged towards the NP. Honest boundaries, not including South West Africa (Namibia) and keeping the very limited non-white franchise will be enough to keep the UP in power for the foreseeable. Even if progress is glacially slow it will at least move forward under the UP and after a certain point it may not be practical to start implementing apartheid even if the NP do get into power.
 
Again, I very much doubt that events in this TL would develop in this way in the second half of 1941. Probably in the summer there will be a Soviet invasion of the weakened Reich and it will deal them a decisive blow.
Fine, you disagree with the way this timeline has developed, but nobody else wants to engage in that debate so please stop trying to provoke a response. We're interested in seeing where things go next given how the timeline has already developed.
 
South Africa really could go either way, as has been said Smuts won 1943 election in OTL and there is nothing that has happened that will make that less likely. The question is what does the UP do in power when they haven't got the distraction of a war and the subsequent recovery?

The really big change would be something entirely unsexy and unexciting, namely putting some honest people on the Delimitation Commission so the electoral boundaries are not so utterly rigged towards the NP. Honest boundaries, not including South West Africa (Namibia) and keeping the very limited non-white franchise will be enough to keep the UP in power for the foreseeable. Even if progress is glacially slow it will at least move forward under the UP and after a certain point it may not be practical to start implementing apartheid even if the NP do get into power.
What I've got tentatively sketched in is the National Party + Afrikaner Party getting a narrow majority in Parliament (from a minority of ballots cast) - pretty much the OTL 1948 result. That's something I'm going to have a think about in the light of what has been put up in this thread, but one thing I'm quite keen to look at with this timeline is the interaction between a much more confident and assertive India and an Apartheid South Africa. That's going to have a major impact elsewhere - the UK for instance will IMHO not be able to ignore what India wants like it did in OTL, and I think is interesting to look at.
 
Again, I very much doubt that events in this TL would develop in this way in the second half of 1941. Probably in the summer there will be a Soviet invasion of the weakened Reich and it will deal them a decisive blow.
You're always welcome to make your own TL then. Pdf has spent the best part of a decade on this, I doubt he is going to start all over again just for you.
 
What I've got tentatively sketched in is the National Party + Afrikaner Party getting a narrow majority in Parliament (from a minority of ballots cast) - pretty much the OTL 1948 result. That's something I'm going to have a think about in the light of what has been put up in this thread, but one thing I'm quite keen to look at with this timeline is the interaction between a much more confident and assertive India and an Apartheid South Africa. That's going to have a major impact elsewhere - the UK for instance will IMHO not be able to ignore what India wants like it did in OTL, and I think is interesting to look at.

Yeah I'd gotten the sense that that was the case - it's fairly plausible that the Nats might be able to win in 1948 with the changes anyway. They'd just need to campaign on the right issues, with a UP that isn't responsive enough to stop it - the sentiments supporting Apartheid were already there amongst a wide portion of the white population, and our buddy Gerry Mander would ensure that they remain in power after that point, plus the additional support they got after following through with Apartheid laws.

As an aside, some additional changes that would probably occur under the Nats in this timeline

> You probably see a Liberal party under Jan Hofmeyr starting much earlier in the course of Apartheid in a serious manner, which will do well to provide legitimacy for the anti-Apartheid movement - I'd also expect our friend Hoffie here to be a major player in the Congress of Democrats, which means the Congress Alliance will be richer for his presence. He's really one of those people who could conceivably survive who were just really nice, and deserve a shot, to paraphrase what you said earlier. His credentials as a being pro-equality should also see greater integration between parliamentary resistance under the Liberals, and civil society resistance under the various Congresses. In addition to this, Hofmeyr also had a reputation for being very straight shooting, and openly and loudly criticised policies he thought were not morally or pragmatically correct - he'd be a proto-Suzman in parliament, which should be quite fun

> Greater integration should see the equivalent of van Zyl Slabbert visiting the ANC in Lusaka happen much earlier after they're forced into exile - possibly within a few years, if any of the Liberal Party's MPs develop personal friendships with the leaders of civil society resistance beforehand, and definitely in greater numbers. This is going to be a thorn in the side of the government - liberal MPs here have had a fine history of flaunting parliamentary privilege, especially people like Helen Suzman, and greater kinship with civil resistance should open more opportunities for that.

> As a quick aside, please, we need at least one of Suzman's insults in a post - they were brilliant. Something along the lines of her telling the PM to go to a township "in heavy disguise as a human being" would satisfy me.

> Politically, the ANC is going to take a very different path after its banning. It's still going to be socialist/social democrat, but the primary political influence being from the Congress in India means they're probably going to end up having much more in common with something like the Labour Party as their signposted ideology than anything further to the left. A lot of the ANC's swing towards more radical policy standings came after they were influenced by the governments in power to the North of SA, most of which were receiving generous Soviet support. The ANC itself also sought and received material aid from the USSR - without that, it'll be a much more moderate party, making it far more palatable to white liberals, and easier to sell abroad as the right side to places like the US and Europe. That should also have helpful effects with the fall of Apartheid some time in the 70s or early 80s - with greater links to the existing political establishment and a backer interested in mentoring them as a party rather than an insurgent group, they'll be vastly better-prepared to enter parliamentary politics - something I fully expect they'll win, given the immense support they'd receive. The Liberals will probably also do better than the OTL DA has managed to, since they'll have a bit more legitimacy as a major player in the Struggle.

> This is all going to have very interesting effects on what goes on in Rhodesia once things start spiralling there - up to and including an Apartheid SA military intervention, or even a post-Apartheid intervention backed by the Brits and Indians - South Africa's also going to be more prosperous, sooner, so we'd be in a better position to play caretaker over Southern Africa, albeit with states with less links to our ruling party. The links will still be there though!
 
Yeah I'd gotten the sense that that was the case - it's fairly plausible that the Nats might be able to win in 1948 with the changes anyway. They'd just need to campaign on the right issues, with a UP that isn't responsive enough to stop it - the sentiments supporting Apartheid were already there amongst a wide portion of the white population, and our buddy Gerry Mander would ensure that they remain in power after that point, plus the additional support they got after following through with Apartheid laws.

As an aside, some additional changes that would probably occur under the Nats in this timeline

> You probably see a Liberal party under Jan Hofmeyr starting much earlier in the course of Apartheid in a serious manner, which will do well to provide legitimacy for the anti-Apartheid movement - I'd also expect our friend Hoffie here to be a major player in the Congress of Democrats, which means the Congress Alliance will be richer for his presence. He's really one of those people who could conceivably survive who were just really nice, and deserve a shot, to paraphrase what you said earlier. His credentials as a being pro-equality should also see greater integration between parliamentary resistance under the Liberals, and civil society resistance under the various Congresses. In addition to this, Hofmeyr also had a reputation for being very straight shooting, and openly and loudly criticised policies he thought were not morally or pragmatically correct - he'd be a proto-Suzman in parliament, which should be quite fun

> Greater integration should see the equivalent of van Zyl Slabbert visiting the ANC in Lusaka happen much earlier after they're forced into exile - possibly within a few years, if any of the Liberal Party's MPs develop personal friendships with the leaders of civil society resistance beforehand, and definitely in greater numbers. This is going to be a thorn in the side of the government - liberal MPs here have had a fine history of flaunting parliamentary privilege, especially people like Helen Suzman, and greater kinship with civil resistance should open more opportunities for that.

> As a quick aside, please, we need at least one of Suzman's insults in a post - they were brilliant. Something along the lines of her telling the PM to go to a township "in heavy disguise as a human being" would satisfy me.

> Politically, the ANC is going to take a very different path after its banning. It's still going to be socialist/social democrat, but the primary political influence being from the Congress in India means they're probably going to end up having much more in common with something like the Labour Party as their signposted ideology than anything further to the left. A lot of the ANC's swing towards more radical policy standings came after they were influenced by the governments in power to the North of SA, most of which were receiving generous Soviet support. The ANC itself also sought and received material aid from the USSR - without that, it'll be a much more moderate party, making it far more palatable to white liberals, and easier to sell abroad as the right side to places like the US and Europe. That should also have helpful effects with the fall of Apartheid some time in the 70s or early 80s - with greater links to the existing political establishment and a backer interested in mentoring them as a party rather than an insurgent group, they'll be vastly better-prepared to enter parliamentary politics - something I fully expect they'll win, given the immense support they'd receive. The Liberals will probably also do better than the OTL DA has managed to, since they'll have a bit more legitimacy as a major player in the Struggle.

> This is all going to have very interesting effects on what goes on in Rhodesia once things start spiralling there - up to and including an Apartheid SA military intervention, or even a post-Apartheid intervention backed by the Brits and Indians - South Africa's also going to be more prosperous, sooner, so we'd be in a better position to play caretaker over Southern Africa, albeit with states with less links to our ruling party. The links will still be there though!

All very interesting, but I'm also interested in what will be the trajectory for Southwest Africa under the UP (assuming that they win in 1943 and 1948 as you suggest might well happen) without Apartheid or even with the NP and Apartheid. Might Southwest Africa actually become integrated fully into South Africa even under a post-Apartheid/majority rule government? And what may happen with Angola and Mozambique?
 
Can someone please help me in regards to the map. Are the borders of Soviet control in Europe (Black Sea north) at this point in the TL exactly equal to the official borders of the OTL Soviet Union in in the same area post war? (I'm getting this and FFO confused. :( ) and if not, what are the differences.

I'm thinking that Finland (the Union) may still Petsamo (and thus an Arctic Coast) without the Continuation War, I'm not sure about Poland and did the Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina gains happen for the Soviet Union.
 
All very interesting, but I'm also interested in what will be the trajectory for Southwest Africa under the UP (assuming that they win in 1943 and 1948 as you suggest might well happen) without Apartheid or even with the NP and Apartheid. Might Southwest Africa actually become integrated fully into South Africa even under a post-Apartheid/majority rule government? And what may happen with Angola and Mozambique?

Namibia almost certainly goes independent at some point - they had an active nationalist movement, and quite a bit of the discontent that fuelled that was from being subjected to Apartheid conditions. The mandate was never something Namibia willingly undertook - and it was mainly kept on for defence reasons by the Nats, which wouldn't apply to anyone more liberal and less likely to pick a fight with our neighbours. Angola and Mozambique are still going to explode into civil war at whatever point the Estate Novo government is overthrown and the colonies are released - this'll depend on what pdf27 wants, but I'd be minded to say you'd get a British intervention, or at least a British-backed one, to support a friendly regime - if not by direct military force, then advisors and weapon shipments. There's a lot of room for fun here with proxy wars between Entente-, US- and Soviet-backed parties - the result of which is really up in the air, and down to who organises and fights most effectively. At the very least, I'd expect no Cuban presence in a major fashion, so the MPLA isn't going to do nearly as well
 
Last edited:
Can someone please help me in regards to the map. Are the borders of Soviet control in Europe (Black Sea north) at this point in the TL exactly equal to the official borders of the OTL Soviet Union in in the same area post war? (I'm getting this and FFO confused. :( ) and if not, what are the differences.

I'm thinking that Finland (the Union) may still Petsamo (and thus an Arctic Coast) without the Continuation War, I'm not sure about Poland and did the Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina gains happen for the Soviet Union.
No Winter War, so Finland still has the 1919 border, including Petsamo.

Poland’s final borders are yet to be determined, but the Soviets still occupy eastern Poland up to the Curzon Line (approximately the same as the current OTL border) under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement. It’s still an open question on whether Britain and France will accept this or try to get Stalin to withdraw.

As for Bessarabia and Bukovina, somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that the Romanian 1940 cessation of these territories to the USSR has been butterflied away.
 
L
Namibia almost certainly goes independent at some point - they had an active nationalist movement, and quite a bit of the discontent that fuelled that was from being subjected to Apartheid conditions. The mandate was never something Namibia willingly undertook - and it was mainly kept on for defence reasons by the Nats, which wouldn't apply to anyone more liberal and less likely to pick a fight with our neighbours. Angola and Mozambique are still going to explode into civil war at whatever point the Estate Novo government is overthrown and the colonies are released - this'll depend on what pdf27 wants, but I'd be minded to say you'd get a British intervention, or at least a British-backed one, to support a friendly regime - if not by direct military force, then advisors and weapon shipments. There's a lot of room for fun here with proxy wars between Entente-, US- and Soviet-backed parties - the result of which is really up in the air, and down to who organises and fights most effectively. At the very least, I'd expect no Cuban presence in a major fashion, so the MPLA isn't going to do nearly as well
One issue will be what will be the legal status of the mandates, if the League of Nations ends without any UN-type legal replacement. (Although the immediate mandate issue in the 1940s will be Palestine, the UN General Assembly revoked South Africa's mandate in Namibia in 1966).
 
No Winter War, so Finland still has the 1919 border, including Petsamo.

Poland’s final borders are yet to be determined, but the Soviets still occupy eastern Poland up to the Curzon Line (approximately the same as the current OTL border) under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement. It’s still an open question on whether Britain and France will accept this or try to get Stalin to withdraw.

As for Bessarabia and Bukovina, somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that the Romanian 1940 cessation of these territories to the USSR has been butterflied away.
The Winter War was late '39/early 40, the major changes didn't start until the German advance west in May of 40. So the end of the Winter War should still be the same as OTL.
 
L

One issue will be what will be the legal status of the mandates, if the League of Nations ends without any UN-type legal replacement. (Although the immediate mandate issue in the 1940s will be Palestine, the UN General Assembly revoked South Africa's mandate in Namibia in 1966).
At the moment the League of Nations still exists officially ITL. It wasn’t formally dissolved in the OTL until 1946.

With their attention fixed on fighting the war, it’s not clear yet if Britain and France will want to reform it and keep it around, replace it with something else, or just give up on the idea of a supranational international organization.
 
The Winter War was late '39/early 40, the major changes didn't start until the German advance west in May of 40. So the end of the Winter War should still be the same as OTL.
I thought the creation of the Union with Sweden forestalled the Winter War? Did the Union occur after the war instead?
 
No Winter War, so Finland still has the 1919 border, including Petsamo.

Poland’s final borders are yet to be determined, but the Soviets still occupy eastern Poland up to the Curzon Line (approximately the same as the current OTL border) under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement. It’s still an open question on whether Britain and France will accept this or try to get Stalin to withdraw.

As for Bessarabia and Bukovina, somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that the Romanian 1940 cessation of these territories to the USSR has been butterflied away.
  • Winter war still happened pretty much as OTL (finished in March 1940, so before the POD starts taking effect). What we miss out on is the Continuation War - so that means the borders of Finland are they are today in OTL with the exception of the Petsamo region where the Soviets now only control the Rybachi peninsula. The big difference is that the Finns now have much more freedom of action.
  • Polish border is along the Molotov-Ribbentrop border (close to the Curzon line but not exactly). The British and French have no interest in getting involved with any changes to it.
  • Northern Bukovina did get transferred to the Soviets, but Italian intervention persuaded the Soviets to back down on Bukovina which is now still part of Romania.
One issue will be what will be the legal status of the mandates, if the League of Nations ends without any UN-type legal replacement. (Although the immediate mandate issue in the 1940s will be Palestine, the UN General Assembly revoked South Africa's mandate in Namibia in 1966).
Current assumption is that the League of Nations is dead and won't be replaced - the circumstances which led to the UN post-WW2 (largely driven by the US) just aren't there.
I thought the creation of the Union with Sweden forestalled the Winter War? Did the Union occur after the war instead?
Yeah, after the war - essentially Narvik still being open gives Sweden more options and hence Finland doesn't have to cosy up to the Germans. That forestalls the Continuation War, not the Winter War.
 
One issue will be what will be the legal status of the mandates, if the League of Nations ends without any UN-type legal replacement. (Although the immediate mandate issue in the 1940s will be Palestine, the UN General Assembly revoked South Africa's mandate in Namibia in 1966).

Even without the League of Nations, the critical component is international recognition of whether South Africa has a right to SW Africa - if, say, the US revokes recognition of legality, one would imagine most other states would follow regardless of a UN declaration. The stuff with mandates in general is going to be messy, but Namibian nationalists are most likely going to be too much of an issue for whatever liberal government follows the Apartheid government to want to hang onto the mandate regardless of whether anyone else says we have a right to it
 
Top