More Israel-type new regional powers after WWII

[Strategos' Risk]

The Levant crisis thread got me thinking. Israel was pretty unique in being a newly established postwar state that:

1. Was made up of a resettled people grievously affected by the war
2. Embodied a new, or revived, national identity
3. Had the capability to be a regional military power

Now, could more such countries have appeared after the war? I'm thinking mostly in terms of 3. than 1./2. - for instance, a newly independent Kurdistan (because the Soviets helped the Republic of Mahabad or whatever) wouldn't quite so count because they would be a client rather than a new regional player. But if, say, I don't know, a Siam that broke neutrality, participated into the war, got out on the winning side, and is suddenly considered a new Allied partner in Southeast Asia that the French, British, and Dutch now have to work with, would.

I know that the Zionist movement was over half a century old by the end of WWII and there had been militant movements in the area for much of that time, but it's still be astonishing to consider the British and French working with this newly formed country during the Suez Crisis and so forth. Israel is a much smaller country than say India/Pakistan or Indonesia as far as postwar regional powers go. Speaking of the I's, what if Ireland left neutrality during the war and became developed by Allied aid during the war, what would be the aftermath of that?

 

[sparky42]

The Levant crisis thread got me thinking. Israel was pretty unique in being a newly established postwar state that:

1. Was made up of a resettled people grievously affected by the war
2. Embodied a new, or revived, national identity
3. Had the capability to be a regional military power

Now, could more such countries have appeared after the war? I'm thinking mostly in terms of 3. than 1./2. - for instance, a newly independent Kurdistan (because the Soviets helped the Republic of Mahabad or whatever) wouldn't quite so count because they would be a client rather than a new regional player. But if, say, I don't know, a Siam that broke neutrality, participated into the war, got out on the winning side, and is suddenly considered a new Allied partner in Southeast Asia that the French, British, and Dutch now have to work with, would.

I know that the Zionist movement was over half a century old by the end of WWII and there had been militant movements in the area for much of that time, but it's still be astonishing to consider the British and French working with this newly formed country during the Suez Crisis and so forth. Israel is a much smaller country than say India/Pakistan or Indonesia as far as postwar regional powers go. Speaking of the I's, what if Ireland left neutrality during the war and became developed by Allied aid during the war, what would be the aftermath of that?

Assuming political stability held together in joining the war for whatever reason, and the mass heart attacks in the Departments of Finance and Defence had been dealt with…
It would likely take much of the war to even bring the Irish military up to anything capable of “modern” combat so no material affect in the war as such, post War assuming a combination of Ireland not being stupid and the U.K. being petty with supplies (if the U.K. remained supplier of choice of course) a much better DF (like an actual Navy), but still likely to face massive issues from Finance and Defence. The investment in infrastructure and skill sets would be significant compared to OTL, but the limitations of the population size would still be a major block, maybe more attempts early on to improve education capacities or housing. Likely as the Cold War develops the USAF/USN might base out of Shannon.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I'd have to imagine that at the very least it would be a logistical base that the Allies would appreciate, and the advantage to Ireland is whatever the U.S. decides to lavish upon it for the development of bases. But okay I suppose it wouldn't be the sort of Israel-style powerhouse after the war, even if it would be much less damaged than the continental countries, and a comfortable NATO member unlike the Iberians.

 

[walmart]

Isn't this otl Apartheid South Africa ? Even Apartheid-era politicians did equate themselves with Israel.

 

[sparky42]

I'd have to imagine that at the very least it would be a logistical base that the Allies would appreciate, and the advantage to Ireland is whatever the U.S. decides to lavish upon it for the development of bases. But okay I suppose it wouldn't be the sort of Israel-style powerhouse after the war, even if it would be much less damaged than the continental countries, and a comfortable NATO member unlike the Iberians.

That’s most likely the end point if Ireland had entered the war, with Allied investment in the country coupled with the monies coming from the forces stationed there and the benefits of supplying them, but there’s going to be an upper limit to what can be done.

 

[Canuck Wingnut]

OTL, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta "operated" a significant air force post-World War 2, as part of an Italian effort to bypass treaty limits on their air force by offloading training and transport capabilities to a trusted minor power. If the Knights of Malta had been unavailable for the purpose, might the Italians have chosen an independent Eritrea as their partner, and given the new nation's military a dramatic boost, especially in a region like Africa where any air force would be an unusual tactical advantage?

 

[BiasHangover]

An easy one is Rhodesia, was one of the strongest military powers in Africa after SA.
An Australia that holds Papua New Guinea.

 

[raharris1973]

Isn't this otl Apartheid South Africa ? Even Apartheid-era politicians did equate themselves with Israel.

In some ways was this WWI *and* WWII Australia also, considering their contributions, and use of the wars to build a local sphere of influence?

 

[raharris1973]

Maybe a Turkey that ends up forced into WWII on the Allied side by indirect means, through the spread of the Italo-Greek war, first to Bulgaria and then to Turkey, before the Germans and British even inevitably get involved.

Described in detail in post #20 here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ined-mussolinis-1940-attack-on-greece.534598/

I imagine this alternate Turkey, which would only suffer German occupation of Thrace, not Anatolia, and some bombing damage, would have some significant Allied infrastructure and Lend-Lease supplies left over after the war as well as strong ties to the Anglo-Americans and potential influence helping protect Bulgaria and/or Romania from Soviet threat.

 

[Monk78]

Pahlavi Iran
Portugal that manages to hold onto African possessions

 

[Petike]

Maybe a surviving democratic Czechoslovakia that continues the interwar republic, but improves upon its existing flaws and improves upon the pre-war industries, while deciding to stay neutral (á la Austria, Finland or Sweden), though in partnership with NATO countries.

Before WWII, Czechoslovakia was actually in the Top 10 of the most developed countries on the planet (in terms of both GDP and what we'd call HDI nowadays), and had a formiddable arms and vehicle industry, inherited from Austria-Hungary, but greatly expanded and modernized since WWI. Czechoslovakia's fortunes were eventually reversed, not only by the ravages of the 1940s, but also by its forced vassalisation to the USSR since the late 1940s, which is where its lagging-behind the "West" had slowly but surely started. I'd say a renewed and democratic Czechoslovakia that decides to stay neutral (maybe not forever, but at least for a few years and decades) could be a smaller regional military and economic power reminescent of OTL Israel.

In one of my own timelines, there is a regional block of democratic central European countries founded after a significantly ATL WWII, that's both something like a smaller, regional equivalent of the EU (or maybe of the older BENELUX block) and a mutual defence block akin to a smaller, local version of NATO. Not quite a single country being a military power, but still relatively subdued.

 

[Riain]

In some ways was this WWI *and* WWII Australia also, considering their contributions, and use of the wars to build a local sphere of influence?

Australia didn't ratify the statue of Westminster until 1942, so really only became independent then. So we get even closer to the mark.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Maybe a surviving democratic Czechoslovakia that continues the interwar republic, but improves upon its existing flaws and improves upon the pre-war industries, while deciding to stay neutral (á la Austria, Finland or Sweden), though in partnership with NATO countries.

Excellent scholarship. I suppose Czechoslovakia belongs to a list next to Argentina and Lebanon as most diminished countries of the 20th century.

I'd say a renewed and democratic Czechoslovakia that decides to stay neutral (maybe not forever, but at least for a few years and decades) could be a smaller regional military and economic power reminescent of OTL Israel.

This is the sort of the idea that should appear in more timelines, even if not as the focus in one. Because it refers to a country that we have forgotten once had the potential to be far greater.

In one of my own timelines, there is a regional block of democratic central European countries founded after a significantly ATL WWII, that's both something like a smaller, regional equivalent of the EU (or maybe of the older BENELUX block) and a mutual defence block akin to a smaller, local version of NATO. Not quite a single country being a military power, but still relatively subdued.

Intermarium West

 

[Warthog]

An easy one is Rhodesia, was one of the strongest military powers in Africa after SA.

Ethiopia, Nigeria, and several Mediterranean states want a word.
Rhodesia had a large military, but was hardly a regional military power, in that

A) Its military was primarily engaged fighting a civil war, almost entirely within its own borders, apart from a small number of raids into neighbouring states. Its capacity to project military power beyond its borders was thus fairly limited, compared to Isreal, or even Ethiopia

B) If the war was over, then perhaps their military would be more capable of projecting, but the Rhodesian military would not be sustainable in a time of peace, in terms of the heavy toll on government spending, conscription etc

 

[mike of mass]

Give Czechoslovakia a Tito like leader and a real hate for Germans east and west and they could become a regional power. They would have the industry and enough Western managerial skills to make it.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

How did the Czechs feel about the Poles? It seems like interwar Poland was a military dictatorship that, while it was inevitably going to get rolled over by one great power or another, could have put up a slightly longer fight to give Germany pause, maybe.

 

[Petike]

Excellent scholarship. I suppose Czechoslovakia belongs to a list next to Argentina and Lebanon as most diminished countries of the 20th century.

This is just my subjective opinion, based on my knowledge of interwar and post-war history. "Scholarship" sounds a bit grandiose.

On a sidenote, Czechoslovakia's interwar democracy was very patterned on American democracy, and to a lesser extent British and French.

Czechoslovakia had universal suffrage, years before the UK and France finally caved in and gave equal votes to men and women.

I don't think Czechoslovakia was the most diminished country of the 20th century, but it was "done dirty", to say the least.

This is the sort of the idea that should appear in more timelines, even if not as the focus in one. Because it refers to a country that we have forgotten once had the potential to be far greater.

Thank you. High praise. I suppose unless it's me or other more local writers, plenty of people will keep using the "Czechoslovakia only as victim of circumstance" cliché, despite Czechoslovakia's very active resistance during WWI (part of the Entente, the Legionnaires giving even Russia a scare) and WWII (assassinating nazis, organizing in both east and west, fighting even in North Africa) and formiddable industrial traditions. One of the ironies of my own timeline is that I don't really have a Czechoslovakia emerging there (though the ultimate outcomes are fairly similar), partly because I wanted to "do something different". Ironically, for people west of Czechoslovakia, not having Czechoslovakia nor a surviving Austria-Hungary, nor obedient fascist puppets in a timeline might seem "incredibly novel" and having Czechoslovakia in any ATL role where it's not a pushover or pretty little victim might even still seem "original" to them (it absolutely doesn't to more original Czech and Slovak writers).

Intermarium West

The irony is that the union and alliance in my own timeline has more to do with some of Hodža's interwar era ideas. Pilsudski has some reverence in the post-war years, but is also controversial, and any thoughts of an Intermarium style block had been dismissed post-war as unrealistic and no longer relevant. The union is more like the V4 on steroids, had the member states not futzed around in all too different directions (though the V4 had made somewhat of a recovery in recent years, despite its issues) and got a head-start by nearly half a century.

How did the Czechs feel about the Poles? It seems like interwar Poland was a military dictatorship that, while it was inevitably going to get rolled over by one great power or another, could have put up a slightly longer fight to give Germany pause, maybe.

The interwar Polish and Czech tensions are well-known and had been extensively discussed on AH.com as well. You can find a fair few discussions on the topic on this forum or in the relevant articles on our wiki (search the POD-by-country articles).

OTL interwar Poland has the extra hurdle of not being a full democracy since the late 1920s. They were nowhere near as bad as the absolute mess of interwar Austria (funny to think nowadays) or Horthy's de facto dictatorship in Hungary, but Poland wound up nowhere near as democratic as Czechoslovakia in the 1930s. Slovak writer and poet Janko Jesenský, a worldweary WWI veteran, bemoaned the pre-WWII developments of the era as Czechoslovakia a lone island of proper democracy, with everyone around sabre-rattling or living pipe dreams.

 

[Petike]

Give Czechoslovakia a Tito like leader and a real hate for Germans east and west and they could become a regional power. They would have the industry and enough Western managerial skills to make it.

Given how Tito lorded over Yugoslavia, how political infighting began very quickly after his death and was exploited by various populists and nationalists seeking to turn old grievances into their personal schemes of getting rich, I'd say that taking inspiration from Tito or a Tito-like figure would actually be detrimental to Czechoslovakia, even in terms of military build-up before WWII, for Czechoslovakia's defensive needs.

Czechoslovakia could have had a more positive version of such a figure in Štefánik, but he was killed in a plane crash, prematurely, and didn't even witness Czechoslovakia coming fully into bloom. Štefánik was very much a champion for modern liberal democracy, and whatever his possible later leanings, I doubt there'd be a cult of personality around him like around Tito. Had Štefánik lived longer and still proved skillful at resolving certain crises, he might have been later remembered more along the lines of even the current Ukrainian president. (Though I don't want to bring current politics and events into this, I'm just using it as a more accurate comparison of personalities, to give you an idea.)

Štefánik became a military pilot during WWI, so if he was still around and kicking in interwar politics, he could have not only been a revered and moderating domestic personality in Slovak and Czechoslovak politics, he might have been a supporter of even bigger investment into Czechoslovakia's aviation industry (which was pretty big already in the 1920s). I'd compare this to de Gaulle being critical of interwar French generals' dated view of tank use and the structure of tank corps, and his efforts to reform the use of French tanks to be more effective in an actual post-WWI battlefield (unlike many, he foresaw that the Germans would not be using tanks as back in WWI).

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Czechoslovakia could have had a more positive version of such a figure in Štefánik, but he was killed in a plane crash, prematuraly, and didn't even witness Czechoslovakia coming fully into bloom.

Sanjurjo but for democracy...