Remove ads

Peace in Our Time! - A TRO Inspired Franco-British Union Quest

Reader mode
Japan's doing well it seems, we'll have to see if there's anything we can do to cut them down a little.
 
Why, I simply CAN'T believe that the Argentinians would refuse to let the wannabe military dictatorship backed by the people who've been exploiting their economy for the past hundred years brutally topple their popular, democratically-elected president like that!

That's just not how it's done, old sport! What will it be next time? Bureaucrats and elected politicians actually being held accountable for their crimes?!
 
Last edited:
We shouldve never opened Iran's markets. And we really really badly need to cut Japan down to size. Perhaps a detente with the Soviets.
 
Honestly it seems like every turn we just get kicked even more and there is nothing we can do about it because if we do something else a different boot just kicks us instead:sad:.
 
WIP Plan

1: Commonwealth Development
- I Identify 3 Crucial Areas that we HAVE TO develop
-- India
-- Arabia
-- West Africa

The reason that I want these areas specially is that they're populous, resource rich areas that if developed properly will give a LOT of power to the Anglo Bloc. India by itself has Superpower potential along with West Africa and Arabia having Great Power potential. And yes we have to treat them as equals, no matter how much of the FBU screams about it. Look at how and why the Asian Tigers developed in OTL as well as altNasser! platform on land reform, see if we could co-opt that.

2: South America
- Well I told you how helping the Americans was a bad idea, but did anyone listen to me? Argentina is lost no doubt about that, however the situation is still salvageable. First off we have to downplay Argentina as *gung-ho Yankees* and not the FBU. Secondly we need to focus on keeping keeping Northern South American within the CAN sphere. Thirdly we need to focus on making a partnership with Brazil and Chile in order to contain Argentina. Finally we have to treat the nations of LATAM as equals.

3: North America
- Honestly the situation here is good so far but we need to keep North America in the CAN or aligned as such. There have to be visible rewards for the elite and general populace of the nations to provide an incentive to stay with us. We should convince the Americans set some funds for development projects and investment into the economies of the Caribbean, Central America and Mexico. Basically a NA Marshall Plan.

4: Europe
- The allied regimes we support here are distasteful but we need them to maintain a foothold. We should convince the Iberian Nations to focus on domestic development ala SK and that should go with all of other allies in the Med. Hopefully they'll transition to democracy later. Furthermore this is where we should put most of our navy and Air Force in order to deter invasion. 60% of the Navy in Europe, 20% in the Atlantic and 20% in the Indian Ocean.

5: Asia
 
LuxemburgLover69 said:
Everything is coming up Milhouse for Japan. I was really hoping Argentina could be a quick win. It seems though that the dominos just keep falling.

I find myself wondering how effective Patton's Patriot Party would be at helping America becoming a global military powerhouse to actually be reckoned with. Even if Dems win the next election, I'm sure they'll have to be concessions to the Patriot Party to help maintain a majority, so they may have a role to play regardless. I really enjoy alternate timelines that play around with different American political parties besides the OTL ones.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I also realized after updating that I forgot to mention the Communist Party under Browder is still chugging along. They're running candidates on the state and local level, and collaborating with New Deal Democrats to help boost them. No FDR or America-Soviet cooperation means the party hasn't folded into the Dems yet. I suppose Foster and others are still there putting pressure on Browder to stop collaborating with the Dems, but New Deal isn't the establishment so cooperation is a bit more acceptable.

The Patriot Party's picking up domestic policies from the Progressive Republicans, alongside older war era proposals. Basically expand and modernize the military, and build institutions that can support that endeavour. Stuff like production boards, partial nationalization of select industries, railroad and highway expansion, etc. Foreign policy wise they're developing "rollback" as their go to policy. Japan's influence must be countered and actively pushed out at every opportunity, even if it means direct war with Japan. It's pretty much the "round two motherfucker" party.

Regency said:
Well, it seems Iran is sufficiently sour on us that even with the concessions they pick ENI and Japan more. Understandable tho after having to kowtow to APOC monopoly.

Egypt's probably gonna play off the Japanese & Soviet blocs as long as it could use the benefits it receives against us.

Well this is interesting. Egypt will for sure make use of this growing rift.

I knew that actively participating in Argentina would blow up in our face lol. OTOH, deciding to barely help the US in nuke development might've prevented that country's current military-industrial establishment to go hog wild with using it.

Edit: I just remembered the Soviets didn't try to insert influence in Iran amid the APOC debacle. Interesting since Iran presents a threatening front from its south.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You kept America happy though, and that will pay off in the colonial section, even though a lot of takes place pre-intervention. You've got American soldiers putting down colonial revolts in Africa. Japan pushing into South America and Europe and Asia being cut off from America means CAN and Africa remains its primary export markets. Wall Street wants to crack open that internal imperial system to profit off those colonies.

NoThymeToulouse said:
Japan's doing well it seems, we'll have to see if there's anything we can do to cut them down a little.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Mashriqi said:
We shouldve never opened Iran's markets. And we really really badly need to cut Japan down to size. Perhaps a detente with the Soviets.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The big divide in CAN is whether they see the Soviets or the Japanese as a bigger threat. America, Australia, Canada, and India all want to focus on Japan, while the FBU wants to focus on the Soviets. The Soviets are right on Britain's doorstep, so London's freaking out about Soviet influence in Europe and the Middle East. While the rest are malding and seething over losing land to Japan. They're also racist about it too. Racism is in fact preventing capital (CAN) from aligning against the Weimar Pact, at least for the time being. Non-aligned nations have no problem working with Japan.

Manowl said:
Honestly it seems like every turn we just get kicked even more and there is nothing we can do about it because if we do something else a different boot just kicks us instead:sad:.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's unfortunately a core part of the experience. Postwar Britain and France involves it all coming tumbling down. That's the fun though, trying to salvage something out of the empire or hold onto it with a bloody fist as long as possible.
 
Fission Battery said:
Peron's support among the population had only grown during the civil war, solidifying rather than weakening the president's popularity. His enemies had quickly burnt any goodwill they had after the initial coup. He quickly became an international star in Asia and Latin America for refusing to bow to American backed forces. By New Years 1956, the anti-Peron military had been defeated and agreed to a ceasefire. Thousands were dead, many more homeless, and Argentina scarred for a generation by the horrific course of the war. Significant portions of the country resembled war torn Europe, all for nothing. America's own backyard was no longer its backyard. The days of it being able to bully every country in the hemisphere uncontested was over. Japan pledged to support the rebuilding process, further linking its economy with Argentina's.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Knew we shouldn't have supported the civil war, but its too late to regret it now

Edit: At least this now sours the idea of military interventions on foreign soil. So we can hope this dumbassery doesn't repeat
 
Last edited:
I'm still quite happy about the whole Argentina thing. I mean, it's sad that it failed and even more sad that it'll undermine our diplomatic efforts in SA, but that's not why I wanted to do this.
The main reason I supported going into Argentina was to keep the Americans happy, which it evidently did.

Also, while I'm not happy about Japan's growing influence, I do think there is some merit in "playing ball" with them (though I agree we need to make sure they don't walk all over us). I see the Soviets as our main enemy, as it represents a bigger strategic threat to us as well as the bigger ideological enemy.
 
Royalist said:
I'm still quite happy about the whole Argentina thing. I mean, it's sad that it failed and even more sad that it'll undermine our diplomatic efforts in SA, but that's not why I wanted to do this.
The main reason I supported going into Argentina was to keep the Americans happy, which it evidently did.

Also, while I'm not happy about Japan's growing influence, I do think there is some merit in "playing ball" with them (though I agree we need to make sure they don't walk all over us). I see the Soviets as our main enemy, as it represents a bigger strategic threat to us as well as the bigger ideological enemy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm not sure I entirely agree with your last point. Not that I disagree that the Soviets mark THE enemy ideologically in regards to us, I don't think their ideology is as big of a threat to us as Japan. Simply put communism is enough of bogeyman in certain minds that we will always at least have something to back us or for us to back against the Soviets. However, Japan I feel represents the biggest threat to our system because it's innately doing what we've historically always done, but with the added bonus of supposedly liberating the places we've spend centuries oppressing.

Simply put, I think Japan is the bigger threat to our empire simply because it's the most able to simply usurp ours from under our noses with basically the same rhetoric we put forth but with the 'anti-colonial' bonus making them not seem like hypocrites and oppressors (ignore all that stuff in China and Korea plox).

Of course I could be totally wrong in which case I would have severe egg on my nose.
 
I think China is going to be a big contentious point for Japan in the future. As others have said, they really do have the advantage of sweeping into countries that were formally colonized by us and just offering them a better deal. China and other countries like Indonesia, for instance, may start to surpass them economically in the future. And I'm just not sure how much Japan really wants to be an equal partner with them. Honestly, this may not be a problem for decades to come. I would assume 70s by the earliest.

Really our best bet for Japan would be to keep trying to deny them access to Africa and South America (lol). To do that I think we are going to have to really rethink our colonial and foreign policy. Maybe a larger carrot and a more concealed stick. I'd honestly be satisfied with granting places independence and just charging them exorbitant debt that they owe for the trouble. Though I'm sure someone can figure out more clever colonial plan for next turn.
 
The constant punishment for invading countries is getting a bit annoying, I get that its meant be be all le empire is le evil and shit but like, can you let us be competently evil? whats the point in a villain thread then every villainous action is failed and every good action like removing empire from everything is critically successful. A japanese deathstack fleet coming out of the blue to such an annoying deus ex machina. Im wondering if you even plan to let us get out of the the cold war in any fashion besides humiliating collapse.
 
Last edited:
I do not want to sound rude but Cbman's post has fed my suspicion: Are our choices in the Quest always set up to fail or atleast go wrong? Especially in regards to taking over a country or war? I know our opponents are pretty buffed but we dont get any warnings of Japanese intervention.
 
Generally, invasions and open war have been shown to be pretty bad ways of maintaining your allies and your sphere of influence throughout the OTL Cold War.

Coup d'états have also had mixed results.

We might not be able to be able of arresting the Franco-British Empire's decay, but we might be able to leave more gracefully than OTL, and on our own terms.
If we play our cards right, we can turn the Franco-British Union into something more unified and prosperous than what we have today.

Imperial Federation-French Union megazord wen?
 
Cbman said:
The constant punishment for invading countries is getting a bit annoying, I get that its meant be be all le empire is le evil and shit but like, can you let us be competently evil? whats the point in a villain thread then every villainous action is failed and every good action like removing empire from everything is critically successful. A japanese deathstack fleet coming out of the blue to such an annoying deus ex machina. Im wondering if you even plan to let us get out of the the cold war in any fashion besides humiliating collapse.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I apologize if the Japanese fleet intervening felt like it came out of left field, maybe it should have explicitly said there was a risk that they'd intervene. I felt that their interest in the country had been made clear enough. They were investing in the country and supporting Peron's goal of building a trade bloc. It's been repeated stated that Japan's navy is larger than either America's or the FBU's. They were patrolling Australia, Canada, and America's coastal waters. The Japanese navy's also refused to bow to an attempt CAN blockade before during the Bengal Intervention.

Neither America nor the FBU has aggressively expanded or modernized their militaries. Japan has more weight to throw around. It should be obvious that a major theme is that you're not top dog anymore. You've got actual competition. Your allies are inconsiderate and fickle and your enemies numerous. Welcome to postwar Britain. If you don't want to play ball with America, cut them loose and burn bridges. It's there to weigh you down and cannibalize your sphere out from under you. They're your biggest ally, but also your biggest creditor.

Mashriqi said:
I do not want to sound rude but Cbman's post has fed my suspicion: Are our choices in the Quest always set up to fail or atleast go wrong? Especially in regards to taking over a country or war? I know our opponents are pretty buffed but we dont get any warnings of Japanese intervention.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You're not always going to fail. However, shit goes wrong. Just look at the actual track record of British, French, and American anti-colonial interventions and coups. The end result was often years of pointless bloodshed that only made things worse without achieving an actual victory. When Britain and France did win all it did was end up buying their colonial regimes a few more years of life before pulling out anyway. In Argentina even after America's backed coup succeeded Peron was still incredible popular. His followers kept nearly winning elections against the military's candidates.

Japan won't sit idly by letting CAN fuck up its investments and potential allies. The Franco-British Union and America aren't top dogs of the world without competition. They aren't the undisputed world police that can sail anywhere, bomb anything, and kill anyone without opposition. Maybe CAN's backed faction could have won the civil war if the Patriot Party or Democrats had won, since it'd have a bigger more modern military. Though Patton likely would have gone to war against Japan, so Argentina would have become another theater in a renewed Pacific War.

Lord Cheddar said:
Generally, invasions and open war have been shown to be pretty bad ways of maintaining your allies and your sphere of influence throughout the OTL Cold War.

Coup d'états have also had mixed results.

We might not be able to be able of arresting the Franco-British Empire's decay, but we might be able to leave more gracefully than OTL, and on our own terms.
If we play our cards right, we can turn the Franco-British Union into something more unified and prosperous than what we have today.

Imperial Federation-French Union megazord wen?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm surprised the option to integrate overseas territories further didn't win the Domestic or Colonial vote. They were formed, given Franco-British citizenship, but then left in limbo. The Imperial/Commonwealth Conference and Imperial/Entente-Commonwealth Customs Union are steps in that direction. Trying to merge the dominions and colonies into the FBU as some sort of mega-state is something you can try to pursue.

Results will vary, since it's the 1950s not the 20s or 30s. The dominions prefer their independence and the colonies' patience has begun to run out.
 
Personally I didn't think the Japanese intervention was completely random. It was a twist, sure, but not something totally out of left field. The fact that Japanese influence is expanding into the western hemisphere and preventing the United States from making South America an extension of its backyard is interesting and will definitely have effects on the political situation in other countries.

As for Africa itself, I don't think there's necessarily a single strategy that will work with all the colonies. The British ones can be federated into dominions and allowed more self-government (with a big asterisk), as we've already been doing. However, I disagree somewhat with colonial policy in other areas since the French and Belgian colonies may actually be semi-retainable without giving up as much control. The big question is whether the government can stomach giving the so-called évolués true equal rights, if for no other reason than it would give them a reason to buy into the colonial system and help oppress the "savages." It would be similar to the Françafrique model of French dominance but without being independent on paper either. There would be a lot of racism and entrenched interests standing in the way of this, but it could be a pragmatic move by the ostensibly egalitarian Labour-Radical coalition to shore up "civilized values" and make sure there's less fertile ground for Soviet and Japanese influence to spread.
 
Fission Battery said:
I apologize if the Japanese fleet intervening felt like it came out of left field,
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah like I told the thread that supporting the coup was a bad idea but nobody listened to me. At least I'm working on a plan to shore up the FBU's weakness, even if it'll leave us as an appendage of West Africa and India in the long term. But you gotta do what you gotta do. I'm trying for a kinder, gentler form of imperialism
 
Last edited:
Remove ads
1952 to 1957 - Attlee’s Labour “Revolution” - Colonial Results
  • Threadmarks

    • Secretary of State for the Colonies Arthur Creech (left)
    Attlee's hatchetman for Africa    ​

    [] Plan: Pink Imperialism v2
    -[][SUD] Write-In: Yes, but not South Sudan. Also, pay us for it.
    -[][IRQ] Accept, but give the Golan Heights to Levant
    -[][LEB] Merge Lebanon with Levant. It's their problem now
    -[][NAF] Interdependence, a fancy new word for limited self rule. Independence in a few years, if they force London's hand
    -[][CEY] It joins the Indian Commonwealth as a new province
    -[] Labour Imperial Policy: FBU protectorates & overseas territories are granted policies similar to those achieved in the Protectorate of Arab Emirates, but adapted to local conditions. All are to be given a path to eventual dominion-hood, subject to FBU Parliament assent based on FBU Colonial Office advice.
    -[] Kuwait: Sell it to Iraq, but maintain FBU majority stake in oil extraction there.
    -[] FBU Mauritania Territory: Sell to Spain to be merged with Spanish West Sahara
    -[] FBU Horn of Africa: Sell Djibouti & British Somalia to Italy to be merged with Italian Somalia.
    -[] South Sudan: Merge it with IEAF.
    -[] FBU West African Overseas Territories: Unite North Mali & North Niger to form the Azawad Territory for its semi-nomadic locals. Merge South Mali, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Upper Volta, Dahomey, Togoland, & Guinea into the West African Territory. Integrate the protectorates of Ghana, Sierra Leone, & the Gambia into West African Territory.
    -[] FBU Nigerian Federation: Transfer FBU enclave territories of Forcados & Bajibo to Nigeria. Merge South Niger, Nigeria, & Cameroon into a Nigerian Federation.
    -[] ICAF: Restore order against warlordism & mercenaries. Rebuild civil service that could make "Labour Imperial Policy" possible in ICAF.
    -[] Southern Africa: Split Southern Rhodesia from South Africa, plus IEAF Northern Rhodesia & Nyasaland from IEAF, to form Rhodesia-Nyasaland Federation.

    ===
    1952 to 1957 - Attlee's Labour "Revolution" - Colonial Results
    ===

    What sat at the core of the Franco-British Union? Was it commitment to liberal parliamentary democracy across the world? Was it shared values of common law, peace, order, and good government? Was it the blood shed together during two world wars? The politicians in London and Algiers would say this and list many more things that linked the two halves of the great union together into a united whole. The truth of the matter was far bleaker than that. The union existed to preserve the remnants of Europe's still surviving empires.

    Consider for a moment the legality of Belgian and Dutch colonies. Nominally under the control of the governments in exile that resided in London, in practice Britain placed these lands under their protection by the end of the war. This fiction was further stripped away when in an effort to consolidate British, French, and Dutch holdings in the Caribbean under a single colonial federation, which by no coincidence was under the control of a British governor general. This trend repeated itself in Africa with Congo falling under London's sway. The Tory's wasted no time in stripping away the legal pretense of Belgian authority when London reorganized colonial borders and administrations without heeding its supposed allies.

    And the Belgians and Dutch had little recourse but to sign off on it post facto. Algiers itself had to offload much of the bureaucratic cost of running the French empire off to London's Colonial Office too. It was clear for everyone to see that the creation of the Franco-British Union created one of the largest empires in history. Nearly all of Africa was under Britain's control. Of a world population of roughly 2.5 billion, over 200 million people found themselves in one way or another under the FBU's control. This vast reserve of human capital larger than the Soviet Union or Ameica remained untapped, instead forced to squander and slave away in poverty deliberately engineered by European overlords.

    Cut off from European and Asian markets, African remained the last refuge of Anglo economic domination. It, and India, represented the last hopes of maintaining a massive economic bloc to keep the FBU on top of the western world. That fact has not slipped the mind of Attlee's government. The enrichment and elevation of the teeming masses of exploited subjects under London's boot was far from everyone's mind. There would be no mass mobilization or education. However, neither the government nor the general population had the stomach for holding onto the colonies forever. That did not mean it wouldn't kill tens of thousands in brutal bush wars to bleed the most militant resistance organizations dry. London could indeed set the timetable for another man's freedom.

    Labour had firmly committed itself to gradual decolonization and dominionship for the most "developed" colonies. Perhaps certain ministers did in fact believe in that mission and did seek to grant African colonies the same independence that Britain had granted India. The road map to self determination and responsible government was deliberately left murky, but filled many African leaders with a vague hope that perhaps the British won't cock it up. The Radicals meanwhile voiced more caution and resistance to Labour's plans, preferring to experiment with integrating the colonies further with political concessions to existing comprador politicians. Left unspoken was the example of Algeria and Corsica. If France could buy into the union in exchange for seats and special representation, then it might be possible to offer similar deals to more cooperative colonies. The "downside" in any scheme of course would mean granting genuine representation and citizenship to colonial subjects that took the deal. Which was a rather unacceptable concept for many in the FBU.

    The government's decision to grant increasing self rule to colonies was taken as a positive step in the right direction. Its willingness to hold talks with leaders was seen as another sign that perhaps London's attitude had changed. The lack of follow up and clarification of the status of many overseas territories and colonies was seen as a major step backwards. The lack of definitive action towards either integration or independence during Labour-Radicals time in office did burn a great deal of good will the government initially had. Millions of people did not appreciate being left in a state of legal limbo.

    Exploitation of the colonies would increase in general. British and French corporations were encouraged to expand their operations across the whole continent. Mines were expanded, telephone lines expanded, forests cut, plantations planted, and wells drilled. The discovery of oil in Nigeria and Algeria led to the expansion of wells in the regions, and refineries in Britain and Algeria. Everything and anything was in demand in the metropole, eager to feed itself cheap resources and sell the surplus to the rest of its customs union. Most of the FBU's colonies remained out of reach of the IUC/ECUC, save for the special economic zones. Forcing the Commonwealth to go through the FBU to buy African resources from the FBU. As was selling finished goods to African colonies and other members of the customs union.

    The environmental and economic costs of this were carried by the native Africans themselves. The toxic slurry ponds from mines and oil leaks contaminating waters around wells poisoned thousands who lacked access to healthcare. A growing number of people in Niger and Congo would suffer from radioactive exposure from uranium mines. There was little concern for safety precautions compared to similar operations in Canada or Australia. Tens of thousands found themselves displaced to accommodate expanded operations, forced off their land into tenant farms, work camps, or slums to provide cheap labour for colonial operations. Attempts to protest or organize strikes were met with brutal crackdowns by colonial police. Organized labour was only accepted if it was done by Labour voters.

    ===


    President Nasser quickly established himself as a major player in the Arab world
    He had one quality his enemies didn't: people actually liked him     ​

    Middle East and North Africa

    The transfer of Sudan to Egypt was approved, but then that whole business with Naguib and Nasser went down. They hadn't even finalized the exact costs of the transfer, so London hadn't even gotten its money before the king's government collapsed. Truly a shame, no money for nothing. Sudan's status entered a legal grey zone, but best understood by all parties involved as a rather blatant repudiation of its agreement with Egypt. The decision to split off the southern portion of Sudan was met with criticism from the Sudanese colonial government. Ismail al-Azhari in particular was an outspoken critic of the unilateral action taken by London without the consultation of Sudan.

    He wanted to preserve unity among the Nile River, and no government liked losing territory. However London held firm on its decision on the basis of ethnic and religious grounds. Egypt would condemn Britain's refusal to grant independence to Sudan. CAN forces carefully watched the borders between the two powers, keenly intent on keeping the Free Officers from organizing in Sudan. It did not however prevent increasing agitation for independence among the local politicians. Sudanese politicians made a point to attend the Commonwealth Conference to demand dominionship and the Home Office to demand representation in parliament. Generations of Sudanese colonial administrators had been trained and educated by Britain in Sudan, and they rather pointedly did not appreciate being treated like other African leaders. They expected their Arab status to be respected.

    Agitation continued, leading to protests against CAN's presence and strikes in Port Sudan in 1957. London was fearful that an outright revolt would risk Egyptian intervention, which while winnable meant an escalation of tensions across the region. Reluctantly, London agreed to grant Sudan interdependence in a deal very similar to the ones granted to Morocco and Tunisia. Sudan achieved semi-self governing status without gaining full dominionship. It did however mean Sudan had more control over its own laws and budget, while the FBU controlled its foreign policy. It was an insultingly meager offering that barely met the bare minimum demands of the colonial government. Ismail al-Azhari became prime minister of the interim government with plans to grant it independence kicked down the road.

    Iraq readily accepted the deal for Kuwait to it, even if British companies retained their property rights. It granted Iraq a larger port and access to potentially undiscovered or untapped oil wells in the territory. It did have to take out loans from the IMF and BoJ to actually pay for territory. It immediately began surveying, hiring contractors from numerous firms. By 1956, ENI, BoJ, and the competing oil companies threatened to spread their financial influence into the Hashemite Arab Federation. It took several loans with generous terms from the IMC and FBU to ensure British companies maintained their virtual monopoly in the region.

    The Protectorate of Arab Emirates did not appreciate the loss of territory, even if it received financial compensation. It meant a loss of potential oil wells. They were somewhat mollified by the discovery of oil in many states, which Franco-British oil companies like APOC (renamed to British Petroleum in 1954) and Shell had first claims to. They were intent on protecting their monopolies, even if they faced encroachment from other major firms, like Standard Oil, Esso, Mobil, and Texaco. Government money was spent to ensure London benefited the most from Arabia's natural resources. Japanese influence was fended off by London's refusal to grant them access to the special economic zone.

    Levant agreed to take custody of Lebanon and Golan Heights, integrating the territories into the country. The half-hearted multiracial policies were undercut by redlining and harassment of Arab Muslims to disrupt communities more subtly than outright expulsion, while never officially stripping them of their citizenship. The purpose was to break Palestinian potential to resist the government while integrating them into the system which placed European settlers on top and collaborators below them. Palestinian and Lebanese politicians that played along got their seats in parliament and ridings got priority access to social services and government investments.

    Seizing Sinai in 1953 would be a source of significant tensions in the region and draw criticism from the rest of the world. Levant's Armed Forces showed a reluctant among of restraint towards the civilian population, save for the garrisons that fought bought rather than withdraw like they were ordered to. Levant made a show of forcing bombing their opposition into rubble using surplus WW2 planes. The unlawful seizure was claimed to be an occupation for peacekeeping purposes, rather than an annexation. It'd become a major source of tension in the region.

    In 1952 Albert Einstein retired from his largely ceremonial post as minister without portfolio, only to briefly reemerge into public life a year later to condemn the invasion. He considered it an inexcusable violation of international law. The famous physicist would spend the last years of his life in America frequently critiquing the government for its racist discriminatory policies and continued occupation of the Sinai Peninsula. The government refused to comment on his remarks. They celebrated his achievements upon his passing, preferring to puppet a corpse that didn't speak back.

    Nasser's Egypt would quickly prove itself to be a major player in Arab politics. He'd implement sweeping land reforms to break up estates, expand union membership into every industry, and make education free for all citizens. The Egyptian Republic reached out to the Soviet Union, Japan, and America to seek financial and military support to fund his modernization programs. America attempted to sway him into neutrality with arms sales and loans. Egypt's America's outspoken support for Levant and CAN made that a rather tricky situation. That, and the Egyptian president had no desire to kowtow to western interests. He wasn't a sucker eager to buy into whatever scheme America attempted to peddle his country.

    Egyptian arms and advisors would soon find themselves being funneled into conflicts across the Arab world. Given that Egypt got an increasing amount of arms from the Soviets, Czechs, and French, that meant Weimar Pact arms flowed across the Arab world. In Sinai Levant had to deal with a never ending insurgency against its occupation. CAN looked the other way when Levant began bombing villages and nomads suspected of supporting insurgents. FBU advisors helped train Levant on anti-insurgency tactics, resulting in tens of thousands being displaced and put into concentration camps at locations controlled by the military. The hope was to choke off local support by denying insurgents hiding places, supplies, and potential recruits. The humanitarian cost of this policy inflicted a brutal toll on the Egyptians interned. It drew significant criticism from the League of Nations, especially the Soviet Union and later Japan once it joined.

    Yemeni resistance against Saudi occupation only intensified . The Saudis found themselves fighting a never ending war against insurgents modeled after the Egyptian Free Officers. FBU offered air support from its bases in the PAE. CAN patrols of the region intensified as "anti-piracy" maneuvers, attempting to cut off Egyptian support for Yemen. It stifled the supply of arms and lowered the intensity of the fighting, merely putting a pause on the fighting. Saudi forces faced constant harassment in occupied territory.

    Libya would see an uptick in insurgent activity against Italian settlers. Egypt publicly announced its recognition of a Libyan government in exile, consisting of military officers and displaced peoples organized into a socialist pan-Arab political party similar to the Arab Socialist Union. King Idris was the ceremonial head included to grant it more legitimacy. CAN intensified patrols at the border in an attempt to stem the flow of support. Its effectiveness was questionable, given the native Libyan population had plenty of reasons to dislike Italian settlers. The discovery of major oil deposits only added fuel to the fire. Insurgents attempted to target oil wells to destroy the state's source of revenue. Italian security forces responded in brutal crackdowns against ghettos and villages.

    Egypt's contributions were smaller than Socialist Italy's own contributions. Eager to denounce the evils of the regime in Sicily, Rome officially recognized the Libyan government in exile and began providing arms to insurgents based in Egypt. Fears about infiltration from Italian agents became a major concern for the Sicilian government. The narrow strait and shared language made it easy for both sides to smuggle people across into the other country. Italian settlers in Libya were from across Italy too, so regional dialect and accent wasn't a guaranteed give away.

    The ongoing insurgency in the interior showed no signs of stopping as the years went on. In response, the government stepped up efforts to displace and pacify the remaining native population. Villages were broken up and the population moved into labour camps, ghettos, or driven further into the interior to die. The Egyptian government contracted nomadic tribes to help establish an escape route for displaced Libyans, giving them a chance to survive. Circumstances forced Cairo to rely on non-state orgs to help keep Libyan insurgents supplied. The League of Nations condemned the ongoing genocide, and the FBU's culpability in it. The passing of the Decolonization Bill further highlighted London's violation of international law in propping up the Italian Empire.

    It wasn't lost on many political commentators in the FBU that they had defeated Fascist Italy, only to turn around and give the postwar regime nearly everything they'd fought for during the war. It was not a good look, especially without the legal fiction of making the territory international mandates. Blatant land grabs had to be dressed up in nicer terms.

    Tunisia and Morocco both accepted the interdependence offer, before beginning to push for outright independence. In a move to appease the protectorates London transferred more authority to the local governments while retaining control over their foreign affairs. The situation was barely tolerated by local elites, though by 1957 protests and riots outside of European zones and CAN military bases broke out. It forced London to the negotiating table where it promised to grant the protectorates their independence within a year, kicking the can down the road till after the election. Spain's continued occupation of Moroccan territory alongside the expansion of its colonial empire in the south further inflamed tensions in Morocco.

    Algeria became a center for increasing radicalization against the regime. The five million settlers had secured a beachhead along the coast and surrounding areas, but the interior beyond the mountains remained majority Algerian Arab. It was these European majority and plurality regions that had been admitted into the FBU as voting areas. The increased number of settlers made London and Algiers feel secure in expanding voting rights to Muslims in these regions, since they were often outvoted and marginalized in political organizations. The few Algerian Arabs that won seats were far and few between, but held up as examples of the FBU granting representation to Arab natives.

    The interior remained an overseas territory with limited representation. The discovery of oil in the region became a major source of revenue and strengthened Algiers' desire to never let go of Algeria. Egypt received a great deal of blame for the uptick in insurgent attacks in the overseas territory, but they played a smaller role compared to France itself. The Communist Party remained underground in hiding, attempting to help organize resistance against the government. They quickly became liaisons between Algerian groups like the FLN and Paris. The FBU remained paranoid about the possibility of infiltration by Paris, but it was nigh impossible to vet the identity and political affiliation of every refugee that settled there after the war. The FBU navy patrolled between Corsica and Italy to prevent smuggling there as well.

    Sicily remained the weak link in CAN's security. The narrow strait made it easier for agents from Italy or France to reach Sicily and vice versa. That gave socialist agents access to Libya, Corsica, Spain, Portugal, Crete, and Algeria. MEC loosened border restrictions for trade allowed foreign agents to potentially travel the whole width of CAN's Mediterranean territory, though not that it was hard to forge documents between either state. MI5 and MI6 made identifying and tracking these individuals a major priority in the region. They would cut off the head. It was up to the military police to kill the body by cracking down on the FLN. The FBU's succeed in pushing most of the violence into the interior, away from the coast, aside from the occasional attack

    ===

    Saharan Africa

    The overseas territories once again underwent a radical reorganization of their boundaries to fit the schemes of colonial planners in London. This time though there was perhaps an inkling of common sense within the office when it came to drawing the boundaries. It did however mean the further breaking of French and British colonial authorities. London also refused to address the legal status of many of the expanded administrations.

    Northern Mali and Niger were combined together into Azawad Territory. The semi-nomadic tribes and spare villages received a degree of self governance as an overseas territory. The logic was to streamline the administration of a sparsely inhabited stretch of land that included parts of the Sahara Desert. French and British companies maintained their resource rights in the region. The tribal leaders were perhaps the only ones that appreciated getting their own fiefdoms carved out for them.

    In a stunning move condemned by many people from both sides, London decided to sell Mauritania to Spain. Colonies were once again for sale between European powers, and done for cheap without paying consultation fees, i.e. the consent of the colonial subjects. The decision was to offload costs without granting it independence. Many Labour ministers criticized the decision, especially since it had been technically made into an overseas territory. There was the potentially thorny legal issue of the FBU selling its own citizen's freedom to a dictatorship, ally or not. The recent oil boom across North Africa had convinced Franco that perhaps there were oil deposits in the region.

    The deal likely wouldn't have gone through, had Spain not promised to take out loans from the IMF and offer British companies exclusive drilling rights in exchange for splitting the profits. It was essentially paying Spain to pay Britain its own money back. Against the better judgment of much of the government, the deal went through. Mauritanians were stripped of their Franco-British citizenship. It meant little ultimately, so being granted Spanish citizenship by Madrid changed little. Given how little rights the average Spaniard had, one could cynically say Iberians and Africans were equal in Franco's Spain.

    After the transfer, a number non-native colonial administrators were relocated to the West African Territory. Chad remained the last redoubt of French Equatorial Africa, having been shuffled between the ministries without any change to the situation on the ground. It was technically an overseas territory, though the supposed "citizens" lacked access to any services. It was not exceptionally important to London.

    ===

    Sub-Saharan Africa

    The merger of multiple administrations caused a degree of confusion, though less than the Tory's previous decisions. Labour-Radical's commitment to not cutting funding at the same time gave a modest cushion to the potential bureaucratic confusion. The differences in laws and language were left up for the Colonial Office to sort out, receiving little direction from the rest of the cabinet. The capitals and divisions of the colonial federations were glossed over in the hopes it'd cause tensions between independence leaders.

    London at least laid out the idea of a timeline regarding increased self determination and dominionship. It stalled demands with promises that reforms were coming, eventually, after the administration was sorted out. The new mega colonies coalesced as the kinks in bureaucracy were worked out. African leaders, compradors, and agitators networked with each other, attempting to either make sure they sat at top of the food chain or presented a united front against London. It was the FBU's misfortune that initially the latter bore out more than the former.

    Kwame Nkrumah made Ghana a leading voice in the West African Territory. His party was one of many that worked hard to bridge the gap between Anglophone and Francophone colonies. It was clear to everyone that the colonial mergers were an attempt to put off independence and cause infighting among the African administrations. A weak federal government plagued by provincial politicking and protests against centralization would be easier to dominate than a strong central one, unofficially dubbed the "Indian Strategy" by outside observers.

    The plan to divide and conquer them through administrative fuckery did slow down the demands for independence by burying them in much more immediate bureaucratic concerns. If Ghana demanded independence, what would its relationship to West Africa be? Where was the capital of West Africa? What language should be used? Does it use civil or common law? Canada would become an example of federalism copied by some colonial offices. A clever idea given how poorly Canada's federal government functioned at times.

    London clarified that despite the name, West African Territory was not an overseas territory. The short-lived status of citizenship was stripped away, explained as a misunderstanding during the initial formation of the Union that took some time to clear up. They were Franco-British subjects. That applied to all "citizens" in African overseas territories and colonies.

    The Nigerian Federation was more straightforward. Nigeria was already a federal entity, like the empire in micro with numerous fiefdoms and provinces under its domain, Cameroon was added to it quite neatly in its own separate legal category of administration. The French educated African bureaucrats and elites had more tolerance for London than it deserved. As long as some concessions were being made and a roadmap to independence existed then they'd wait to see how it'd play out. They could work in the system, so long as the system gave them something. That was not a universal opinion though.

    Those brave dissenters made their opinions known. The Union of the Peoples of Cameroon organized protests in the interior that would become an active insurgency then full blown uprising. In 1955, FBU forces were deployed to put down the revolt that was taking hold in Cameroon. CAN volunteers provided support while French colonial police and soldiers took the lead on brutalizing the population. Algiers refused to let go of any piece of the colonial empire without a fight. If anyone got their freedom it'd be on their and London's terms.

    The hope for a quick victory failed to materialize. It'd become a long running insurgency for years to come, however it was overshadowed by other colonial conflicts. FBU forces employed similar methods against the UPC that they did against the Mau Mau in East Africa. Villages were put into concentration camps, brutalized by soldiers or settler militias, and incendiaries were deployed to burn away any cover. These inhumane tactics only succeeded in brutalizing innocent people and driving more into the arms of the Mau Mau.

    Kenya itself became the sight of a massive long running insurgency against Franco-British authorities and settlers, started in 1953. The hopes of isolating insurgents in the interior slipped from London's grasp as the fighting escalated and lasted for many years. The Mau Mau were better armed than East African police had initially estimated. Local armouries hadn't been raided, meaning they likely got their guns from outside the colony. These suspicions were confirmed when Indian versions of British equipment showed up alongside more modern Japanese guns.

    Attempts to trace the trail of guns eventually led authorities to Italian East Africa. It lacked the strict port and border security that the FBU was enforcing in its own colonies. Azad Hind ships could sail and dock in any port in Somalia for a few yen. Corruption among the Italians and dissatisfaction among the natives made it easy to recruit porters to transport cargo into the interior. It was also discovered that several of these routes passed through Ethiopia. It refused to allow CAN forces to operate in its territory to crack down on the insurgents.

    Security in the region was escalated when CAN forces deployed to Somalia in 1956 in the hopes of locking down the ports. The large coastline made it difficult to halt all naval traffic into the colony. The situation threatened to escalate when an Azad Hind freight was impounded by Indian forces in Mogadishu. Several of the soldiers were veterans of the Bengal Intervention and took out their frustrations on the imprisoned sailors, brutally killing several of them. Azad Hind railed against the actions of CAN. Japan itself began to take an interest in the conflict, especially when the blockade prevented Japanese exports from reaching Ethiopia. Food rotted in port, machinery gathered dust, and military aid to the landlocked country was seized and destroyed. Ethiopia railed against CAN in the League of Nations and to the FBU directly, claiming that London was violating its own agreements with Ethiopia that allowed it to access the sea by way of Eritrea.

    Tensions were running high as the Argentine Civil War was occurring at the same time. There was serious fear that fighting would resume in India or that Japan would deploy a fleet to East Africa. The fighting in Argentina ended before either could occur, so CAN backed down on seizing Japanese goods. It still prevented weapons from entering the ports, but allowed civilian goods to come and go after a brief inspection. Yen began to exchange hands again as Italians looked the other way, allowing a reduced flow of arms to reach the Mau Mau. Attempts to kill or capture the insurgency's leadership had failed. It showed no sign of stopping. Ethiopia refused to do anything to help, content to watch the FBU bleed over a colonial conflict.

    Compared to the unrest elsewhere in the continent, the Central African Federation proved to be more stable than previously feared. Sensationalist reports of mercenary armies fighting rogue warlords over diamond minds turned out to be exaggerations. Perhaps in a decade or two if nothing was done that may have become a reality, but the situation was much more mundane. Congo was plagued by corruption and staffing shortages. Labour-Radicals commitment to rehiring civil servants, sorting out who answered to who, and restoring the administration's budget headed off the worst of the issues. It could survive the growing pains inflicted on it by the previous Tory led coalition.

    Private companies continued to set up shop in the special economic zone, however they had colonial police as security. Security provides moved on or accepted their more limited role than they hoped to enjoy. Any talks of independence were put off by London. It claimed the previous chaos meant Central Africa required more time to prepare for interdependence, much less independence. In the meanwhile, American, British, and French companies continued to loot the resources of Congo at the expense of the people who lived there. It was the Congolese working the mines and plantations, and seeing none of the profits.

    ===


    South African Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd, architect of apartheid
    Considered to have put the Franco-British Union in a bit of a bind    ​

    Southern Africa

    Splitting Rhodesia from South Africa was preferable to all parties involved. The political knife fights between Anglos and Boers had caused political gridlock in parliament. Their policies were not dissimilar. No, the point of contention was over who'd be the head racist asshole of the country. Rhodesia becoming its own colonial federation with a semi-devolved government was a happy divorce, allowing both sides to be equally racist on their own side of the fence.

    The National Party quickly dominated the political scene, implementing intense and far sweeping segregation laws. Apartheid became the law of the land in 1954. The white settler minority, and the Boers that voted National Party at that, entrenched themselves as the ruling force in the country. The crystallization of a racial caste system caused outrage across much of the world, even in the Franco-British Union. Johannesburg was refusing to play along by pretending not to be a racist settler colony and play lip service to equality before the law. It said quite proudly and loudly that the white man ruled the world, and everyone else had to live with it. Assimilation wasn't the goal, neither was civilization.

    London advised Rhodesia to prepare for majority rule. The white settler population was a minority in South Rhodesia itself, even more so when one considered the population of the federation as a whole. Even the Tories and Conservative Bloc advised the federation to make plans to concede some power to Africans. The numbers weren't in their settlers' favour. South Africa's enactment of apartheid encouraged Rhodesia to ignore London. It'd remain a colonial administration for the time being as it refused to listen to London's requests, stalling the process.

    The two regimes created a political hand grenade for London. African leaders demanded the FBU reprimand South Africa and take action against it. Many stated that they'd seek to leave CAN, ECUC, and the Commonwealth in general if South Africa was allowed to remain in any of the organizations. They would not share a seat at the table with a country so boldly declaring them unequal. India meanwhile requested that Indians be treated better and be granted more rights. The West Indian Commonwealth filed its own shares of complaints against apartheid. Given its black majority population, but predominantly white government the issue hit especially close to home.

    America officially remained quiet on the matter. Unofficially, it'd be one of many knife fights in the 56 general election. Lodge found himself flanked on the left by other Progressive Republicans who vocally criticized the president's support for the regime and demanded that segregation be opposed domestically. The were further flanked on the left by New Deal Democrats who were busy fighting the courts who attempted to strike down state level civil rights bills and social welfare programs. Dixiecrats loved it, thought the whole thing was wonderful. America needed more segregation.

    ===

    South Asia

    In contrast to the mess that was Africa and the Middle East, India and Ceylon remained steadfast and reliable allies. The handover of the island was approved by all parties involved, which concluded with a fancy signing ceremony to make everything look nice and official. Ceylon, or Sri Lanka depending on one's political persuasion, joined as India's newest province. The government respected the property rights of British landlords and foreign businesses on the islands, refusing to implement land reform without compensating said foreigners at full price. The IMF and IDC were happy to provide India loans to finance a myriad of private-public development and reform schemes the government was pursuing.

    The Indian Commonwealth remained the largest market in the customs union. Its network of railways, telephone lines, and native middle class provided an excellent dumping ground for Franco-British goods. It was far better than the African colonies in that regard, continuing to pay for a significant portion of London's budget. Indians continued to make up a major chunk of migrant labour within the wider Commonwealth. The liberal government encouraged work programs, receiving a cut of the payment to contract out its own citizens' labour.

    ===

    Overall, independence had been staved off for a few more years, but it couldn't be for much longer. Neither African leaders nor a number of Labour ministers would tolerate playing any more games about stalling the process. There were serious talks about cutting deals with the colonial federations to reach the "Indian Solution" to the problem, even the Radicals and Conservative Bloc were coming around to the idea. Well, at least to the largest most well organized colonies. The rest could remain under thumb a while longer. There were proposals of creating a new middle ground between colony and dominion, granting them a status similar to Canada and Australia before the 1931 Statute of Westminster.
     
  • Threadmarks
    • Remove ads
    Next colonial vote will be super critical. Proper investments could pay dividends. I'm fine with parts of Africa being "independent" so long as they only trade with us and our allies. The time for corrupt African dictators is now.

    As for who to vote for. I'm still feeling we ride the Labour train.
     
    We approaching the point where Empires become unprofitable. It is better to grant the fiction of local autonomy and have our corporations and military handle the dirty work.
     
    God those colonial borders are awful. Not trying to attack anyone, but it's just a bunch of nonsensical changes that clearly made things worse.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top