The Portugal issue was the only one that others have argued upon, all of my other 'demands', if you will look back, have not been touched upon (well, not entirely true: 2, 8, and 11 have been touched upon, but not to any decisive point). What arguments have been incompatible with my own? I have read every reply to this thread, and I have found nothing.
I never doubted that you read every reply, please don't take offence, but I've also been through this thread as well and I can tell you from experience I don't recall every word in every post and I wouldn't expect anyone else, even Amerigo to do so. So I personally find it odd to claim that few have challenged
any argument in this thread. Everything from southeast Asia, the middle east, Canada, Europe and so forth has been the subject of much discussion with many viewpoints being put forward and not all of them are similar. Besides, as you yourself admit 3 or 4 of your demands have been touched on.....as to whether they have been touched on decisively or not, that is subjective since it may not be decisive in your view but could well be the crucial factor in someone else's point of view.
Hnau said:
I'm not sure if you made more mentions of the subject, but on page number 22, post #431, you wrote that it was implausible that the United States would let an undamaged communist country with the largest population in the world take so much territory when so much has been lost to defeat the Soviet Union. I, personally, am undecided on this issue of whether the USA would and/or could of put an end to Chinese expansionism. I will leave that to others to decide, but it seems most are in favor of Amerigo's scenario. As long as this is this case, I must demand that the question of the PRC's leadership be answered in the next version of the timeline.
Now this just shows that although you have read every post, it is impossible for any one person to remember everything from every post. I looked through again and the post I made that I was referring to was on pg. 24, post # 474. Reading it you will see that sometime ago I too asked for more speculation concerning China, so that your demand there is greatly supported and not just by me...some other posters also had opinions on China with some thinking it implausible that China would avoid the war altogether.
Hnau said:
I did not make these mentions flippantly, I did my research, however I believed the facts obvious enough for one with some small amount of time to google the subject to find the justification himself. Nevertheless, if you must know:
I never said you did, I was simply question why it was you have an Indo-Pakistan War in 1971 with Bangladeshi independence at the same time. I don't think you said it flippantly, but I was interested in knowing what you had found that lead you to that particular conclusion...however as you wrote below:
Hnau said:
October 27, 1962
OTL: There is a lull in the fighting between the People's Republic of China and India during the Sino-Indian War that had begun twenty days ago. Zhou Enlai and Nehru have been discussing a solution to their border issues. Zhou sent a letter three days ago to Nehru proposing a twenty km withdrawal from the current lines of control and a negotiated settlement. Today, Zhou receives a communique from Nehru declaring that he will only accept a return to the borders before the conflict and the creation of a buffer zone.
October 30th, 1962
TTL: (Inferenced from statements by Amerigo Vespucci) The escalation of the Cuban Missile Crisis has put China on the defensive. Mao fears that the United States will target China in the winner-takes-all nuclear war that is to come. He thus makes it China's first priority to be taken off of NATO's target list. This means that they reverse their policy of alliance with North Korea, warning them that an invasion of South Korea will result in a 'humanitarian' Chinese invasion. An agreement to Nehru's terms to put the Sino-Indian War behind them also assures the CIA that the PRC is not an enemy.
Why?: In Amerigo's scenario, the United States would not take China off their list of targets unless their slate was clean. Continued hostilities against India would give the USA enough of a reason to count the PRC as an enemy. The PRC would have to accept Nehru's demands to allow for the events that happen in the TL.
Why does it matter? To show you that the history of India isn't going to be disturbed by warfare, because if that war had continued, without the Great Powers, it wouldn't have come to a settlement as it had in OTL. However, if it had continued, the US would have nuked China. Thus: if China emerges untargeted, we can assume they do not go to war with India.
Because China has to deal with Korea, Siberia, and Indochina, I doubt they will return to war with India in the short-term. It is certainly a possibility in the future, however, with border problems unsolved.
OTL: The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965
Why doesn't this happen? A) The military government of Pakistan will not put as much investment into sending infiltrators into Kashmir to draw those peoples into a revolt against the Indians, because a major reason for that operation was because they observed that the Indians were unable to defend themselves from the Chinese and believed they could duplicate the act. B) The military government of Pakistan has to deal with the effects of the war and asserting themselves in the new power structure. Read: economic depression, famines, and droughts because of the nuclear devestation just north of them. This will give them a more prominent priority instead of territory conflicts with India. C) India has to deal with economic depression, famines, droughts, but also the task of providing aid to European nations and providing thousands and thousands of homes to skilled European refugees, an operation that will have a high priority in the next couple of years. Even when Pakistan starts belatedly sending infiltrators into Kashmir, India has too much on their mind to launch an invasion as they did in OTL. D) In OTL, the two nations used weapons provided by them by the USA to fight communism to fight each other. The USA quickly placed an embargo on them in 1965, which led to the end of the war. In TTL, that embargo is placed on the two countries three years early. There's no chance of this happening.
Effects: The invincibility of the Pakistani Army is not disproved. The Pakistanis probably still believe the Kashmir peoples will rise up against India, and they still believe their 'Martial Race' Army will easily trounce the Indians. Also, East Pakistan, which in OTL felt little had been spent for its defense against India, and felt that they had spent their money for a West Pakistani affair, ITTL will still gravitate more towards West Pakistan.
Still, let me remind you that there is nothing in this timeline that will turn the trend of Bengali nationalism away. It would be totally illogical and nonsensical to say that the reasons for the East Pakistani independence movement will not exist in this timeline! This is completely different from Portugal's situation. Archangel has given us enough proof to validate the fact that the Portuguese colonies became independent primarily because of Cold War forces, and if Portugal had been left to their own devices, they could have handled the situation. East Pakistan seceded from West Pakistan for completely different reasons.
East Pakistan suffered economically under the West Pakistani military regime. Perhaps 70% of Pakistan's exports came from the East, but only 25% of the budget was spent on the East. Despite having half of the population, only 34% of the development expenditure was spent on East Pakistan. The West Pakistanis consistantly thwarted the East Pakistanis bids for power, and committed atrocities against its population.
The events leading up to the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971 could be delayed by one factor: the 1970 Bhola cyclone. This cyclone killed between 300,000 and 500,000 Bengalis, but the central government handled the situation very ineffectively, making significant blunders in providing aid. This exposed the problem at hand and was the spark that lit the gunpowder keg. Because the Cuban Missile War changed the climate so much, this might happen at a different time. Because the war lowered the average temperature instead of raised it, I would say that weather effects are delayed instead of hastened. Thus, I would estimate the Bhola Cyclone hitting two or four years later (1972/74), but you could delay it indefinitely, its within the realms of possibility. Along with the lack of a Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 (no increase of Bengali ire against the government) and other problems concerning the CMW, I think you could say that the Bengladesh Liberation War does not occur until the cyclone hits or around 1974/76, whichever comes first, but I do not believe it possible this trend can be reversed quickly enough to prevent East Pakistan's secession. By around 1975, enough time should have passed for independence opinions to spread around thoroughly enough to lead to a war for independence.
Now, the Indo-Pakistani War will be somewhat different. With much more of a brain drain from Europe to India than Pakistan, India has more of an advantage by the 1970s. Without a loss to China, India is more confident, which could be a pro or con. Without a loss to India, Pakistan is much more confident, believes its army is invincible, and has not begun a reform of its military strategies, which is a major disadvantage. Without American or Soviet arms, both nations are at more of a disadvantage, but Pakistan especially. Pakistan is further disadvantaged by the closer proximity to nuclear attacks against Iran, Central Asia, and Turkey.
I see a more decisive and dramatic victory for Indian forces. They aren't going to have the military equipment or power to institute any radical changes... like annexing Pakistan or something crazy like that, but Pakistan is really going to have to play by Indian rules this time. I'm thinking they formally cede away all contested border areas to India, accept the debt from Bangladesh, and perhaps a demilitarized zone? This is going to put Pakistan into the Chinese camp quite more than even OTL.
Actually, now that I look at the facts spread out on the table, it makes me think that the People's Republic of China would move against India and the AAN from gaining a new member, Bangladesh, and defeating their ally, Pakistan, perhaps going to war with India over border issues. Its not hard to imagine that this could very well start World War IV, if no one shows any restraint. That's why I believe it extremely important that there is a leadership change in the PRC between 1974 and 1976, something important enough to sidetrack China from going to war against India.
This is why I asked that question. You originally wrote:
Hnau said:
3. Without aid from the United States of America, Pakistan fails more easily in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, which results in its democratization as well as the loss of East Pakistan, which becomes Bangladesh. Bangladesh becomes very friendly with India and joins the Alliance of Asian Nations. Pakistan falls farther into an alliance with the People's Republic of China, becoming their principal ally in the cold war against India. [Almost identical to OTL, but Pakistan needs to be mentioned as an ally of the Chinese]
However, as you have now written out a more detailed timeline it seems likely that one of the sparks for the East Pakistan would either occur later (or at some other time) and Bangladesh might be formed in 1975 instead of 1971. When did the US embargo Pakistan and India in TTL? I can't remember it (too many versions of the TL). What about the the Awami League and the 1971 Pakistan election (which was the other spark for Bangladeshi independence)? In that election the Awami League won 167 seats (out of 169 allocated for East Pakistan) out of a 300 seat parliament (thus winning an outright majority). The results were cancelled by the then military President and the military carried out a crack down on civilians in East Pakistan in late March 1971. If the Awami League had been allowed to form a government (very unlikely I know if the military government has not handed over power to civilians before 1970) that could well delay Bangladeshi independence as such a government is far less likely to continue the historical trend of exploiting East Pakistan and it probably would have given East Pakistan more autonomy (although not immediate independence as that would mean the Awami League would lose power over the whole of Pakistan). At the very least it might spend more of the budget and development expenditure on the East. But for any of that to happen, it would be important to know if the military is still in power by 1971 (and I think the first General Khan faced a stiff challenge in the 1965 presidential elections from Fatima Jinnah, the daughter of the founder of Pakistan - if she had managed to win then who knows).
Hnau said:
Chris S, I am willing to view facts and figures without bias to determine what is plausible or not. I will not hold a grudge against someone who disproves what I say. I want nothing more than to have a fair and friendly discussion to help create a realistic timeline for this scenario. But please! You have seriously insulted my intelligence in this statement! This is one of the most obvious lessons that are learned when dealing with alternate history! Please do not try to educate me in this area when it is nothing more than part of my common sense when writing alternate history! I am really hurt that you would believe you need to condescend to me in order to point out that I made this error. I am really flabbergasted.
Now please, let me school you. I am not saying that Iraq will absorb Kuwait because of opinions I have of modern-day Iraq. Ha! Why would I do this? A childish conclusion. There was a fiasco over Prime Minister Qasim of Iraq [URL="http://books.google.com/books?id=nzrLF7KSAmAC&pg=PA233&lpg=PA233&dq=kuwait+iraq+qasim+1962&source=web&ots=7hvMqgIPhH&sig=jucJorJIsTuF4KjaG-b6RrZ7kLM"]calling for Kuwait to ‘return to the homeland’ in the early 1960s. Now, the events of Operation Vantage are to still occur, as it is before the POD. However, with international Western power devastated during the Cuban Missile War, there will be no British or CIA support to the Ba’athist coup d’etat in 1963. Amerigo Vespucci also mentioned a war between Israel and its Arab neighbours shortly after WWIII. As Qasim’s Iraq was against pan-Arabism and the Arab League, there is a good chance he would not go to war against Israel, of if he does decide to (trying to gain their support) he will wait at least a few days after initial operations to decide if it is worth getting into. In that case, Qasim will witness a quick Israeli victory and will decide not to join. With the Arab League suffering from a defeat, with NATO, US, and British forces still recuperating, Qasim would likely once again assert sovereignty over Kuwait and lead his troops to annex the small country. He’ll do this to gain popularity for his regime as well as fulfill expansionist ambitions in which there is only a short window for success.
I seriously did not mean to offend you, I was simply stating a fact. A fact that we have all forgotten to take into consideration at one time or another (myself included). Even Amerigo had been arguing about the post-war 1963 US attitude to the UN (and by extension the rest of the world's attitude although neither has to be the same) based on the US today, and as I pointed out, the US attitude then was vastly different.
I also see that you misread my post. Perhaps I didn't phrase it correctly, but I was actually referring to Scotland and not Iraq and Kuwait. I had already said:
4. Iraq forcibly annexing Kuwait seems possible, but how sure are we that Britain doesn't exist?
I do know of Iraq's attempt back in the 1960s (I think a couple TLs have been attempted surrounding that incident), but in your point you said
Without Britain or British troops
. I agree that British troops won't be there, but I am not so sure that Britain won't be around in the world. Scottish attitudes might have changed after the war, but in OTL the Scottish only narrowly voted yes in 1979 for devolution (and even then it wasn't enough as the turnout and the yes vote were not sufficient to pass the mark of having 40% of the total electorate say yes as required by the government at the time). Basically 63.8% turned out, of which 51.6% said yes (32.92% of the electorate) and 48.4% said no (30.88% of the electorate) and 36.2% of the electorate didn't care enough either way to bother to come out to mark a piece of paper. This compares markedly with the 1997 referendum where 60.4% turned out but a whopping 74.3% said yes (44.87% of the electorate which would have more than qualified under the 1979 referendum rules). Less people turned out (proportionally), but far more said yes (proportionally).
Hnau said:
This is Alexandretta we’re talking about… You know, Iskenderun? Former Hatay Republic. Part of Greater Syria, and actual Syria until 1939 (stolen by the French and ceded to the Turks). Syria has been drawing Alexandretta as part of theirs on their maps from then to modern day. With the vacuum of power, Syria will take this tiny, healthy border province, on the fringe of Turkey (why would the Soviets target Alexandretta, or anywhere near it???). The people there will probably agree with the annexation, seeing it as better than living in anarchy. There’s too much political face to be gained to not take this small part of Turkey.
Yes, but if the Soviets wouldn't target Alexandretta and had no reason too, then it stands to reason that other areas of Turkey may be similarly spared which could well leave enough intact for a Turkish state to still exist and to oppose (at least on paper) the Syrian attempt. I also wouldn't know if the residents would actually want Syria to take over - maybe, maybe not. If they didn't it would lead to the interesting scenario of a hostile Syrian occupation probably followed by covert or even overt Israeli aid to the Alexandrettans.
If Alexandretta had been targetted though, I still don't see why the Syrians would move in right away. Perhaps in about 2-5 years if Turkey evaporated, but for at least 1 year afterwards (if the city was targetted), it would seem to be more a drain on Syria than a boon although maybe if the port facilities survived that could be a reason.
Hnau said:
It escapes me right, but I’m sure I can find a source. There was a historical view for South Africa to annex Botswana, and consider that with the end of the British Commonwealth, and without a current state of self-government in Botswana, South Africa could easily create a protectorate over the territory they so long desired. Botswana would be a major enemy to apartheid if not taken, and if they are annexed, South Africa could connect with apartheid Rhodesia as well as Angola and Mozambique: the last firm European colonies. They could create a bulwark against racial equality. Why wouldn’t they annex
Well I'll be glad to see it. I've always wondered where people read about this. I do remember something about Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland being considered for incorporation as provinces at the time of South Africa's unification (and that Rhodesia had also been considered later on but the idea was rejected in a referendum), but I never got the impression that past that time there was any real or serious thought of including the 3 in South Africa. I have seen reference to South Africa proposing to Portugal that Mozambique be swapped for a mandate over Tanganyika during the peace conference after WWI (with Mozambique coming under South African control) - imagine what fun people could have with a TL where Portugal accepted! (it was in a book about the History of South Africa...that might even have been the title. It was at a relative's house, so when I get the chance I will check again). However, again, it didn't seem to me that any serious thought was given to incorporating any area other than South-West Africa after Apartheid became official government policy in 1948 as South-West Africa was by far the more attractive (having German settlers from before 1915 and South African settlers from that time onwards). If Britain or its successor, England, lose control over the colonies in Africa, the South Africa may well set up puppet governments in Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho (in effect turning these countries into protectorates), but it seems less likely that South Africa would actually annex them than turn them into protectorates (why go through the trouble of possible riots and disturbances, when the same goals can be achieved through pliant governments in nominally independent countries?). South Africa would annex South-West Africa if international order collapsed (and would probably do so, even if it didn't since there would be no major power to oppose it and since it didn't really care what other countries thought).
Hnau said:
They didn’t wantto do that, they simply told Britain they would to try and save face, so that less pressure would be applied to apartheid. With the West decimated, South Africa will begin playing by its own rules, and that means strengthening apartheid.
Just making sure I'm not misinterpreting you. You meant that South Africa didn't want to geographically separate blacks from whites through the "independent" Bantustans but to keep them in South Africa but under apartheid?
I'm not sure on that. The Bantustan concept had been around legally since 1959 (and probably banded around before that as an idea). It certainly seems like the logical outcome of apartheid: - separate the races from each other in almost every sphere of society ..... then separate them politically. However if South Africa had done it just to save face (which seems quite likely as well) then you're right in that South Africa wouldn't bother with it anymore.
Hnau said:
You are right that its UDI was not made to 1965, my mistake. However, with the Rhodesia Front Party holding power as of WWIII, independence will come quite quickly. However, de jure does not matter in this world of a collapsed power structure. South Africa lent aid to Rhodesia for a time, and surely wished to support their sovereignty if only they could get around Britain punishing them for it. You are right that no one recognized the UDI.
I know
de jure independence wouldn't matter if the world is truly devastated following TTL war, I was just pointing out that Rhodesia was never recognized as independent ever in OTL (which I always thought was odd, since I though South Africa at least would do so).
Hnau said:
It doesn’t matter if it is rare for a personal union to happen, it doesn’t matter if they weren’t both republics, and the constitution doesn’t matter either. I did not mean a ‘personal union’ in a literal sense: the two countries would share a base of power so that de factothey are two parts of a strong confederation. The simple matter is that Rhodesia has apartheid for the time being, as well as the funds and will to uphold it (they put a lot of money keeping the blacks down). South Africa is not going to allow an ally to become an enemy, and without Britain or the West to please (for continued trade) South Africa is going to do what it can to encourage apartheid in Rhodesia. Rhodesia will become dependent on South Africa for its military to keep the blacks down (Rhodesia spent nearly half of their GDP on the military a little later on), and this kind of cooperation will lead to very close policies. Perhaps South Africa will create some kind of Union of South African States or some such to draw Rhodesia, Lesotho, Swaziland, and Botswana into a tight cooperative structure.
I don't see how you can fault me here. I could never have known that you did not mean personal union in the literal sense. Personally I never seen the term used otherwise, so you'll have to forgive me. I understand you now since you've used the term confederation. There is a strong basis for your idea: the 1910 customs union between South Africa, Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland. This customs union eventually became the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) around 1969/1970 (Namibia joined upon its independence). If South Africa annexes South-West Africa then that area would be automatically included and if South Africa and Rhodesia are freer to support each other and have diplomatic relations, then Rhodesia would probably join between 1963-1965 (or whenever it became independent in TTL). This customs union would probably be strengthened by extending the Common Monetary Area (South Africa (and by extension South-West Africa), Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland all used the South African rand until 1976, 1966/1980 and 1974 respectively). Thus the Common Monetary Area would be extended by having Rhodesia adopt the rand as legal tender (probably alongside a new Rhodesian pound that replaced the Rhodesia and Nyasaland pound which was the currency of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland until 1964).
Hnau said:
How will South Africa take Lesotho and Swaziland? They’ll do as the CIA do. Without anyone bigger and badder to investigate their infiltrations, South Africa will support factions in those countries that will make them into puppet states. Its about who is more powerful and what they can do to keep that power.
Agreed. I can easily see puppet states. I just couldn't see outright annexation (which would provide little more power and much more trouble in terms of opposition from the population).
Hnau said:
A step, maybe, but not ten. You are right that we need to number crunch a bit before we determine anything about Iran. But there are resources that Iran would benefit hugely from in the future if they took these areas that are without a power structure, and are already in a cultural area that they could dominate. Who are the people living in this frontier going to turn to over the years for help? Iran is an obvious choice. Its better than Central Asia being taken over by the Chinese. Greater Iran is a real national idea that could be very popular, and so easy to take (once the radioactivity issues are dealt with).
I was joking about the ten steps. I do think a step or two might have been skipped though and as you said, some kind of analysis needs to be done so we can figure what kind of shape (if any) that Iran is in after the war. I totally agree that Iranian influence would extend over time into the Caucasus and Central Asia if the Soviet Union evaporated. Might make for some interesting Central Asian politics.
