"And then there was none"And thus only Japan is left to handle.
That would be... why spoilers!Will the Greeks send forces to fight against the Japanese - like for exemple, an destroyer division attached to the BPF?
Arguably that's hardly surprising...And so, just as the ink is drying on the Germans terms of surrender, the colonial unrest has already started. Oh dear
And one notes its hardly just Alewites and Syrian Arabs...To the Syrians and the Alewites what they want opposes each other. With France allowing these states to grow a lot longer than otl I would expect we'd see a bunch of wars in the Mid East soon enough, with the Syrians and Alewites calling each other Fascist.
Let me see... no comments. Besides the fact Assyrians proclaimed independence back in 1941 and it remains in limbo since then. But now the war in Europe is over and the San Fransisco conference already underway. Assyrian-Arab-Kurdish relations cannot remain in limbo they have to come to a decision...So the interesting part begins.
1 Greek gains from Turkey.
2 would love to see a realocation of the assyrians to Turkey attached to Greece under a population swap. Reduce further devastation to them.
3 Armenia.
4 constanaople?
Quite a bit more of Austria was directly controlled by the Western Allies at the time the war ended but otherwise yes.And so the war in Europe ends. For all the speculation on Austria, it landed in a relatively similar place then OTL as to who conquered what so its likely to be in the same place in the Washington-Moscow Axis when all is said and done as well. As many have speculated the WAllies have also wound up liberating the overwhelming majority of Yugoslavia, giving the Chetniks a fighting chance against Tito.
There was quite a lot of talk immediately postwar about a Scandinavian Defence League. How it would work out...So the faces and dates are a little different but the war ends for Germany and Austria much as it did OTL from what I see. Killing or imprisoning the hardline Croatian nationalists is likely to help Yugoslavia going forward in whatever shape it takes. I expect Denmark will end up exactly the same as OTL, except possibly with Swedish help this time. I wonder if Scandinavism will see a resurgence in TTL, in Sweden at least.
If the legion would take ex SS soldiers no questions asked it likely would take in Russians too. The Greeks now likely have some interest in putting a noose around this guy.Czechia is still the big question mark. I don’t think the Wallies will change much there but I do hope that as many members of the Russian liberation army as possible can disappear into the French and Greek army rolls. They’re in Bavaria so they’re well placed for it at least
The Middle East has a LOT of chickens coming to roost at the moment. The French have been playing everyone within Greater Syria to an even greater extend than OTL for the past 25 years and the British have been giving promises, often enough contradictory with each other, to everyone under the sun since the entry of Turkey in the war in 1941. Come down to it it's not just the Middle East. What about Churchill's promises to Mike Collins for a united Ireland for example?I’m assuming the actions in Syria are the beginning of TTL’s version of the Levant Crisis? Although this time noticeably without any Lebanese, Kurd or Alawite actions? I imagine that the British will still get involved in pursuit of their dreams of a Mega Hashemite client Kingdom in the Middle East, but still no actual conflict occurs between the Europeans. I wouldn’t be surprised if Lebanon and the Alawite state both have French military bases after the crisis though.
Lets say France is lucky and in 1954 it is actually run by Charles De Gaulle. I have no doubt De Gaulle would be handling many things better like frex controlling the Pied Noirs much better. Would he be willing to give up Algeria without firing a shot? Color me unconvinced.I’m curious about an event you didn’t mention though. Do the Setif and Guelma massacres still occur ITTL? Guelma seems easy enough to avoid by just butterflying away the officer who ordered the peaceful protesters attacked. Setif is also seeinungly easy enough to avoid by having the protesters give up their banners peacefully or by having a more tolerant officer in charge who was less in favor of violence. I only ask because the Massacres are widely seen as a turning point in Franco-Algerian relations. A peaceful decoupling is much more likely without them. Possibles even one where the French keep Oran and possible Bône. A France that avoids the Algerian War of independence is a very different nation than one who suffers through it. To say nothing of the befits for Algeria avoiding the destruction of the conflict.
The Lebanese TTL actually have what is a battle hardened army, one of the regiments of the French 10 Division Infanterie Colonially was Lebanese Chasseurs. How much that actually does matter... dunno. But in OTL a generation down the line the Christian militias were crap quality wise. Here there is a core of men who'd actually seen the elephant.Also, with the Syrians seeming to be close to war once again, with the Syrians and Lebanese being the first to fight against each other, I wonder would we see Lebanon being a lot less pro-arab and be anti muslim. If the Alewites fight the Syrians too things would get very interesting very quickly.
They would not be at all happy with partition and likely actively fight against it. Partition being a bad idea though is a different thing from partition not happening. Which likely means you've just planted the equivalent of a second Israel in western Algeria with independent Algeria trying to capture French Algeria, likely with Soviet support... but that is a different matter is it not?I am also highly skeptical that the Algerian nationalists would have been cool with a partition. Like, please don't misunderstand me here: their desire for independence and decolonization was 100% natural and justified but IMO it is still important to not whitewash them: the moto of the FLN in their message to the Pieds Noirs after the independence referendum was ''la valise ou le cercueil'', the suitcase or the coffin. They definitely do not strike me as people who, had it there just not been a bit less bad blood, been willing to accept regional referendums which France would have mostly won on Pieds Noires votes...
April 1945? More seriously the photograph is from OTL. Berling's army.The War is over, the Muddle East is already on fire, and I think most foreign SS formations were likely able to surrender to the WAllies.
I really hope this TL goes into the Cold War cause it’s gonna be fascinating.
Also when did the Poles get to Berlin?
That's unfortunately likely...The mindset and conditions were there for the Algerian massacres to happen OTL; if those two specific events were butterflied, I’d bet money on there being alternative massacres later on. I don’t believe in the chances of a peaceful decoupling no matter what.
Thanks for the good words.First for all, I want to say how much I have been enjoying this timeline, and I would like to thank Lascaris for taking the time to create and update it.
In 1940 TTL its population was about ~700,000 significantly less than the 1,124,000 of OTL. I am inclined to argue this has been a good thing. Long term Athens may or may not reach its OTL population, TTL Greece is more populous but by the same token you also have Smyrna. And no matter what happens to Constantinople unless things go drastically bad from the Greek point of view it also remains a big Greek urban center. TTL so far I had the Greek population of Constantinople growing at rates similar to Cyprus between natural growth and people from Greece moving there. If anything the rate of migration into the cities will be growing post war...Now, thought, I do find the situation that Greece found itself in, as of 1945 intriguing, and I have the following questions:
1) What is the population, economic conditions and social life in Athens compared to OTL? I know it has been a while, but I never saw an update specifically touching on how Athens is developing without all the Anatolian refugees. However, I must come to the conclusion that it is ,at least, less populated. Although I do think that the population loss is somewhat offset by the avoidance of the Axis occupation. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how Athens develops during the Cold War, as many of the refugee "Shantytowns" that later grew to become whole districts of Athens will be missing, that coupled with a more economically capable Greece and no Axis looting & destruction, Athens will surely be radically different than how it is OTL.
Exact numbers will have to wait. Overall Greek civilian deaths during the war have been about 464,000 with close to 165,000 combat deaths. Greek and Armenian civilian deaths in Constantinople have been a further 118,000.2) How is the demography of Asiatic Greece looking? I know lot of the rural population has escaped behind the Smyrna walls. But what happened to the ones left behind? I expect they were would be treated in a similar way Serbs were treated in Kosovo, I.e. being declared colonizers and either executed outright or sent to "work camps". However, I do wonder how many Greeks remains West of the Smyrna walls. Will Greece be able to replace the ones lost? Will the the rural refugees even want to return to their villages, considering that many would still fear that war could eventually return, and thus it's smarter to just stay in the safe zone? This questions specifically will probably be troubling the Greek government for the foreseeable future, no country wants to have underpopulated regions, but underpopulated border-regions are on another scale of non ideal situations, especially when you want to expand said regions to include "unwanted" inhabitants.
Back in 1940 Smyrna had 567,000 people and Thessaloniki 200,000. So Smyrna is massively larger at the moment. If there is to be a +co-capital" that is arguably Smyrna TTL not Thessaloniki. Metro system... no comment for now.3) Does Smyrna, at the moment, surpass Thessaloniki, economicaly or population wise? Thessaloniki, is the only major city of Greece to have experienced the Axis occupation, and a eventful one at that, so will the city be forced to accept the mere third place behind Athens and Smyrna or will they live up to their Co-Capital status? It may just be me, but I don't see Thessaloniki getting a metro system in this TL either. Smyrna on the other hand...
Greece got back in 1921 what it wanted perhaps even a bit more. Sazan is a possible exception and certain point of contention.4) We already know that Greece will most likely try to maximise their gains against Bulgaria and Turkey, however, are there plans for gains against Albania, or has Greece taken everything in wants from Albania already? Also, is Sasona/Sazan island (which was conceded to Italy by Greece due to Italian demands after the Second Balkan War) claimed by Greece or/and Albania? (It was given to Albania OTL)
Technically Greece did get immediately in. The question how minimal Greek Monastir is TTL. The things might have been looking a good thing back in 1940... less so in 1945. At a guess it is the absolutely minimal land to have the town, its Vlach population and any Slavophones supporting Greece or deciding their parents did before 1912 and were really Greek all along.5) What is the status of the Monastir deal between Yugoslavia and Greece, is it public knowledge or a military secret? Greece, technically, didn't fulfill it as they didn't immediately join Yugoslavia in their war against Italy. But, as of 1945 a lot of Greek blood has been spilled to liberate Yugoslavia. It is a difficult situation all around, as Yugoslavia doesn't have a stable enough political climate to give away Slavic majority regions to a foreign power after such a costly, and victorious, war. However, Greeks won't forget this "Yugoslav betrayal" if they choose to not concede the region.
The Greek public decidedly expects so. Hell even a lot of people withing the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs are arguing so at the moment. Realistically at a minimum Cyprus should be expecting changes towards self-government, TTL the legislative council is still around sice there was no 1931 revolt with 12 Greek, 3 Turkish and 9 British members. Reducing the British appointees or increasing the number of the elected members are not unreasonable things to expect.6) Do the Greeks even expect the British to let them annex Cyprus at this point or is it seen as a future issue by both sides? Do the Greeks see it as inevitable that Cyprus will came under Athenian administration, and for that reason there is no need to spend political capital for it during the peace treaty?
And one notes its hardly just Alewites and Syrian Arabs...
As you've said before the French's meddling in Syria and the Alawite and Lebanon states being something that has existed for 20ish years at this point means that the Alawites and Lebanon probably have the nationalistic identity and a lot more pre-existing state structures that would allow them to resist and fight the Syrians. If the Syrians go for a fight in the region it could end really ugly for the Syrians. With Lebanese armies being present, I defo see Lebanon itself being very much a changed entity in its early nation building, especially if the Syrians enact a few massacres that increase national identity for the Lebanese.The Lebanese TTL actually have what is a battle hardened army, one of the regiments of the French 10 Division Infanterie Colonially was Lebanese Chasseurs. How much that actually does matter... dunno. But in OTL a generation down the line the Christian militias were crap quality wise. Here there is a core of men who'd actually seen the elephant.
Technically Greece did get immediately in. The question how minimal Greek Monastir is TTL. The things might have been looking a good thing back in 1940... less so in 1945. At a guess it is the absolutely minimal land to have the town, its Vlach population and any Slavophones supporting Greece or deciding their parents did before 1912 and were really Greek all along.
There'd probably be movements of the Macedonians to move to Greece in general, but with this tl I could see Macedonia going back to Bulgaria in the future if things favour the Bulgarians. If the Bulgarians are under the American camp that is. If they're under the Soviet camp I don't see them wanting to unite with the Bulgarians even though they dislike the Yugoslavs intensely.That’s actually a very good point. The Yugoslavs are likely to come down hard on the Macedonians for being pro Bulgarian during the war. Not as bad as the Albanians or Croatians will be treated but they have to know there’s a target on their back. I could definitely see a lot of Slavophones deciding that they were “Greek Macedonians” the whole time to escape the coming persecution if there’s some vote that gets held.
Well Tito DID conduct a fair bit of ethnogenesis. However he was not operating in a complete vacuum. It's not as if Tito ordered 900,000 strongly nationalistic Bulgarians to switch national identity and they did overnight. But by the same token it is not as if the population that received the Bulgarian army as liberators in 1941 and had tens of thousands of men join the Bulgarian army was not self-identifying as Bulgarian to a large degree. Things were... more gray.That’s actually a very good point. The Yugoslavs are likely to come down hard on the Macedonians for being pro Bulgarian during the war. Not as bad as the Albanians or Croatians will be treated but they have to know there’s a target on their back. I could definitely see a lot of Slavophones deciding that they were “Greek Macedonians” the whole time to escape the coming persecution if there’s some vote that gets held.
Oh absolutely. The whole Macedonian identity is a gray area when it comes to its history. It doesn’t help that many of its early supporters frequently flip flopped on wether they were Bulgarian or their own group. I could just see many of the people in the area using that gray area to their advantage to avoid the impending Yugoslavian crackdown. Even beyond the Monastir and it’s surrounding environments I could see Macedonians afraid of a crackdown identifying as Greeks to try and escape. And Greece would probably have a good reason to accept them since they’re going to need people to fill the empty spaces of their new Anatolian possessions.Well Tito DID conduct a fair bit of ethnogenesis. However he was not operating in a complete vacuum. It's not as if Tito ordered 900,000 strongly nationalistic Bulgarians to switch national identity and they did overnight. But by the same token it is not as if the population that received the Bulgarian army as liberators in 1941 and had tens of thousands of men join the Bulgarian army was not self-identifying as Bulgarian to a large degree. Things were... more gray.
Yeah so this is just mostly from otl, other than the Greek ships being in Anatolia.snip
And I tought that was going to be per district - making a smaller Northern Ireland overallNorthern Ireland, June 14th, 1945
The first elections in North Ireland since 1938 took place. The results were not particularly promising for Irish hopes that Winston Churchill would hold true to his promises of unification of Ireland after the end of the war. The Unionists, openly advocating remaining part of Britain had won slightly over 63% of the vote, with the Nationalist party a distant second with 27%. While Collins continued negotiations with the government in London, the results of the election were not lookig good for Irish prospects if a plebiscite took place...
I'm just surprised the Druze went with the Sunni Syrians on this one tbh, I would've thought that there would be animosity between the two groupsYeah so this is just mostly from otl, other than the Greek ships being in Anatolia.
There will be no peace in the Mid East isn't it? It is as per otl, but I really wonder what the hell is the Alawite state doing rn. Considering that it has been a thing for 20ish years I'd expect that the Alawites would have a lot to say about Syrian occupation, especially as Latakia and Iskenderun are nominally under the Alawite state before all this happened. I hope we see an Alawite revolt as the Syrians attempt to consolidate their new state. That would be an interesting divergence from otl...
That is also true, but I think it is as per otl and the fact that they want the French out more than anything probably contributed to it, even if the two groups dislike each other.I'm just surprised the Druze went with the Sunni Syrians on this one tbh, I would've thought that there would be animosity between the two groups
Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps France will back Greco-American designs on Cyprus as a result, where the Brits would hate the French for doing so but not jeopardising the united front of the WAllies.Unfortunately it does seem France might back Soviet claims as a way to get even with the UK for this.
That is true. I'm guessing that there's no Latakia incident too, but thing is the push between the Syrian want to have a connection to the sea and the Alawite want for independence will be an important point of convergence for Middle East politics for the foreseeable future, which is why I hope we see more from the Alawites.I mean the Alawites aren’t specifically named but it does say the French troops remain in the Alawite state so I’m assuming they stayed loyal but neutral. The Druze and Non Lebanese Christian’s we’re big supporters of Syrian nationalism OTL. I’m curious if the eventual withdrawal from Lebanon and the Alewite state happens in this timeline. I could see France making a push to keep both in their sphere. And both have reason to stay with the hypothetical mega Hashemite kingdom on the horizon.
Even some of the newer ships kept in service would likely have to be retired sooner rather that later given the wear and tear they had suffered.
Half of it is just that Pan-Arab ideology would be more thoroughly discredited if the Alawite state and Lebanon doesn't join in, the other half is that Israel could just win more thoroughly due to syria either having to fight lakatia and lebanon or lakatia and lebanon giving Israel aid as their defense posture probably would be a mutual one.One potential result of this timeline is a more complete Israeli victory in 48. This may very well kean no Palestinian issue as an Israrli problem , and Israeli control of the region between the Jordan amd the sea. There will still be probably a couple of rounds of arab-israeli interstate wars, but once those are resolved the dynamics of the region will be diffrent.
This is the million dollar question for the regions political stability I think. Because as is Lebanon is set up for an inevitable conflict between its Christian and Muslim populations. A conflict that could become a proxy war between the potential pan Arab power and Israel/the Alawite state/others. I think there were some population movements mentioned but I don’t know how significant those were overall. I also don’t know if Lebanons Muslim population is at all changed in its disposition from otl.The main question is what borders Lebanon will have.