Of lost monkeys and broken vehicles
- Thread starter Lascaris
- Start date
Nuclear armed Greece would be so cool in general, and it'd really change ME's politics as the Arabic nations would ask the soviets for nukes, which would make the ME a lot more unstable. All in all, I think the ME would be seen to be as insane as the Balkans.
I could see Greece doing this but I could just as easily see them going the OTL route or completely non nuclear. Considering Greece’s much more strategically important positioning in the straits I could see the Soviets offering incentives to remain non nuclear even if they are apart of NATO. Especially in the day before nuclear missiles having the closest nuke to the straights be in Italy instead of Smyrna is valuable. I could also see the Greeks and Turks coming up an understanding that either they both create a nuke or neither do to avoid any tensions or misunderstandings, particularly if they’re in the same alliance ITTL. While there’s more recent bad blood than in OTL, the Cold War had a habit of making former enemies tolerate each other and work together.
On one hand I see this happen.
On the other I don't see how the Soviets could give the incentive to not do so. At most I could see having no nukes near Constantinople and Canakkale, but unless the Soviets don't help the Arabs at all when the Brits probably move to help Israel and co I don't see Greece not develop nukes. Greece would always look at Turkey and be scared of them after all.
Besides that, how many have ended up married with Greeks after several years in Greece.
That's still about 2 to 3 decades into the future and dependent on politics a fair bit. But TTL Greece is liable to have a nominal GDP... 3 to 4 times higher than OTL hence investment on a civilian nuclear reactor program is rather more affordable.
National Technical University of Athens, experimental physics department presumidly just like OTL.
I think the obvious candidate TTL is Sweden given her OTL track record and now directly bordering Red Finland and having a territorial dispute with it. Now the next obvious questions is what side effects nuclear Sweden brings. Frex one of the reasons Switzerland decided against obtaining a nuclear arsenal was that Sweden had not. Then if you already have Sweden and Switzerland what happens with Italy which in OTL had very comprehensive plans including her own SLBMs and nuclear ballistic missile submarines? And one notes that pre De Gaulle has a joint nuclear weapons program with France... and West Germany?
If Greece goes for a nuclear program I would think the likely path would be similar to Israel (or India for that matter). Build a "research" reactor to produce and separate plutonium, the technology would likely be coming from France or Canada, go to France for something like Jericho missile, or work together with the Italians and their Alfa missile, for your deterrent not to be totally aircraft bound, build up from there....
I think he would be able to stay in Greece. After all, Greece may chart a course that would put it at odds of the other powers, and the Greek government hopefully would realise that he's needed and keep him on deck to continue producing planes.
But if he's to leave for somewhere else, America sounds like a place he would thrive in.
This makes it sound like ELEO would become a military manufacturer from tanks to jeeps, which would be very good for Greece, especially if they can sell such weapons to their allies in the ME. With the Alawites, Lebanese and Israelis needing a manufacturing base that they can reliably buy from until they can build up their own industrial capacity I can see Greece profiting off the wars of the ME.
Unfortunate this ATL did not merit to see Issigonis's OTL contributions to Morris (also a world without the Mini).
Does Hassan Al Banna get captured by the British as a Nazi spy?
Does Hassan Al Banna get captured by the British as a Nazi spy?
I am somewhat late to the party but have some doubts about the hypothetical maps posted earlier. To sum it up quickly:
I. I don't believe West Germany is likely to be all that bigger then OTL. Much of the extra stuff that is given to West Germany in those maps is down to the Wallies occupying territories east of the Elba, which happened in OTL too so no reason for a difference IMO...
II. Similarly, I have a hard time thinking the borders of Poland will be that different from OTL. The fundamentals of the situation are still the same: the USSR sees the Curzon line as its natural border, they want the territories east of it back and they have the means and the political capital to do it. Politically Poland has to get something substantial in exchange for the USSR to be able to limit the political costs of taking territories from an Allies country and very few are going to defend Germany and the Germans living east of the Oder in the climate of 1945... At most there might be a bit more territory who will stay with East Germany, as alluded to in the TL, and Poland might get the OTL Kaliningrad oblast as a result but little more differences then that.
III. For the Middle-East, I do have some serious doubt about the smaller Israel... Sure, Abdullah has more forces at his disposal then OTL but so does the Yishuv and unlike him they aren't going to use any of it fighting the Assyrians...
Add to this that international opinion is likely to be even more on the Israeli side then OTL, thanks to how ITTL WW2 went down and the upcoming Assyrian War of Independence, that Abdullah is likely to keep at least some forces in reserve to make sure he has things under control in Iraq, that Lebanon is unlikely to participate ITTL, that Egypt and Syria are likely to be even more suspicious of him then OTL after his Bagdad takeover, that Israel might very have an even easier time find a way around the arms embargo with Lebanon at least turning a blind eye to some smuggling and third party buying from its territory and that thanks to a (I assume, since I believe the camps were liberated somewhat earlier then OTL) Holocaust the Israeli are likely to be reinforced by more survivors with military and/or resistance experience then OTL and yeah...
Best case scenario for the Hashemites we will have the 1967 border when the dust settles but there is a very descent chance the Israeli will leave the ITTL version of the 1948 war with even more territory then OTL.
I. I don't believe West Germany is likely to be all that bigger then OTL. Much of the extra stuff that is given to West Germany in those maps is down to the Wallies occupying territories east of the Elba, which happened in OTL too so no reason for a difference IMO...
II. Similarly, I have a hard time thinking the borders of Poland will be that different from OTL. The fundamentals of the situation are still the same: the USSR sees the Curzon line as its natural border, they want the territories east of it back and they have the means and the political capital to do it. Politically Poland has to get something substantial in exchange for the USSR to be able to limit the political costs of taking territories from an Allies country and very few are going to defend Germany and the Germans living east of the Oder in the climate of 1945... At most there might be a bit more territory who will stay with East Germany, as alluded to in the TL, and Poland might get the OTL Kaliningrad oblast as a result but little more differences then that.
III. For the Middle-East, I do have some serious doubt about the smaller Israel... Sure, Abdullah has more forces at his disposal then OTL but so does the Yishuv and unlike him they aren't going to use any of it fighting the Assyrians...
Add to this that international opinion is likely to be even more on the Israeli side then OTL, thanks to how ITTL WW2 went down and the upcoming Assyrian War of Independence, that Abdullah is likely to keep at least some forces in reserve to make sure he has things under control in Iraq, that Lebanon is unlikely to participate ITTL, that Egypt and Syria are likely to be even more suspicious of him then OTL after his Bagdad takeover, that Israel might very have an even easier time find a way around the arms embargo with Lebanon at least turning a blind eye to some smuggling and third party buying from its territory and that thanks to a (I assume, since I believe the camps were liberated somewhat earlier then OTL) Holocaust the Israeli are likely to be reinforced by more survivors with military and/or resistance experience then OTL and yeah...
Best case scenario for the Hashemites we will have the 1967 border when the dust settles but there is a very descent chance the Israeli will leave the ITTL version of the 1948 war with even more territory then OTL.
We're probably going to see the Arabs vs everyone who wants to break off (Lebanon, the Alawite state, Israel, Assyria, Kurdistan) which would tilt the ME against Islamist ideologies and towards more nationalist ones; with the nation-building France did before hand and the Kurds being able to fall to Kurdish territory of what was formerly Turkey the states form a pretty stable alliance against the Arabs and maybe the Turks whenever they get uppity.
Fot Germany I hope we get Bavaria-Austria as Churchill wanted, it'd strengthen Austria and would force their neutrality to become a lot more tangible.
I think the thought behind this come from the Wallies overall improved bargaining position compared to where the lines were at the end of the war OTL. Mind you I’m not sure we see effects in West Germany, since most of the gains are in the Balkans it makes sense for the changes to be in the Balkans.
For the most part I agree with this. I don’t see East Germany keeping more than what has already been stated and I don’t see Poland getting anything besides Curzon line B and possibly OTL’s Kaliningrad oblast.
Even if only Lebanon stays out of the war ITTL there will definitely be big changes as thats an actual a whole front that doesn’t require men and can be used to smuggle in arms and men. Assuming the 1948 war is otherwise similar to OTL except for a stronger Arab Legion and Yishuv I see the Gaza Strip not existing and the Westbank being significantly smaller if it exists at all.
Maybe in the long run for the ME but Islamism wasn't that central a factor until decades later aniway. So many things can play out until then... I do think you are right and that France is likely to stay more involved in the area, with a longer-term alliance with Israel though.
On Churchill's concept, I would respectfully but strongly disagree. At this point Bavaria is just too well integrated into Germany as an idea for it to have any shot at really working, it was mostly Churchill letting his nostalgia for his youth blind him for a moment and coming up with something inspired by the old Hapsburg monarchy before really reasserted itself and its quickly shelved.
(number for my ease of answer).
I. I think you have the right of it. When all is said and done the most important factor in deciding the post-war stuff is who liberated, and later occupied, what. Doing better in the Balkans mean Bulgaria is probably going to wound up with the West, Greece won't ever be in dispute (obviously) and Yugoslavia is in play. Similarly, doing better in Italy mean more Western influence in Austria and Czechia being potentially savable. I don't see it changing things in Germany...
II. IMO Lebanon being there as a probably Israeli-leaning state matters a lot. Most nations on earth have a lot of weapons but need cash. The Yishuv and later Israel are unique in being in the opposite situation. If Lebanon is willing to play the intermediary to launder the weapon, so to speak, and they'll probably get away with it since Czecoslovakia didn't seem to have suffered any real consequence from breaking the arm embargo in OTL, then suddenly there is a flow weapon coming Tel-Aviv's way, and the Arab countries can't do a lot to stop it since trying to strong arm Lebanon can get France involved and cutting the Yishuv/Lebanon from Lebanon is a tall order...
I do think most of the West Bank is likely to remain, if for no other reason then Abdullah being a key beneficiary from the butterflies, but it might very well smaller in some parts, with the IDF having a fairly good chance of capturing East Jerusalem. Agreed on the Gaza Strip though, and I could even see the Israelis capturing the Golan Heights almost two decades before OTL.
In this scenario, I think that for Abdullah, Jerusalem would be so or more importantly both symbolically and militarily, than OTL and considering that both would have more and better armed forces better armed and with more war veterans/experienced/competent NCOs and officers than OTL... I'd suppose that the battle/s for Jerusalem, would be likely to be longer and more hard-fought than OTL...
IMO,at this stage the G. Heights only way that they could be targeted either only by the IDF or in a hypothetical join war ending offensive, would be as a key step in the way to attack/threatening Damascus
There was a strong undercurrent of Bavarian separatism at the time and apparently even stronger monarchism. This in turn though was apparently regional also within Bavaria. The Bayern Partei might have been polling 20.9% in 1949 for example but support varied heavily between Old Bavaria on one hand and Swabia and Franconia on the other. If someone in Munich was strongly supporting secession from Germany most likely Swabia and Franconia would be seceding back to remain part of Germany. Which would leave independent Bavaria at 37,551 square km and 4.5 million people in 1950. Dunno if that's too small for a country and too big for a lunatic asylum.
The Americans don't exactly want the imperial powers fucking with freedom, especially during that point in time, but with the chessboard very much tilted in France's favour with the Alawite state, Lebanon (probably the principal ally of France) and Israel being there I think France would not fear for lacking allies. Hell, Kurdistan may be a potential ally. It also means Greece probably would move to France's side, meaning the Brits prob get the short end of the stick in Cyprus and in the ME in general, and Iraq and the Hashemites would be the main British allies in the region.
On Germany you're probably correct. I just like a Germany that has different borders than otl.
Both the creation and maintenance of a nuclear weapon stockpile are an immense expense for any country, let alone one as war-torn as Greece. Between decades of on and off war, the integration of new territories, reconstruction of destroyed infrastructure and demobilization of the economy, I don't see where the state would find the money for a nuclear weapons program. It's not even like Greece could fend off the Soviets if the Soviets decided to invade, bomb or no bomb. A far better option is to just remain pro-west and be a founding member of alt-NATO to ensure you remain under the nuclear umbrella of the US-UK-France.
I'm not saying it couldn't happen, states make wasteful decisions with their national budgets all of the time. It just seems to me like a colossal waste of money when their are far more pressing matters at hand.