• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yay! It's back! And India is liberated! exclamation point!!!!
I'm excited to see how far down the rabbit hole goes with regards to the development of the new Indian order. Is there a population transfer going from India to Pakistan TTL, and if so, are quite as many people trying to move this time?
 
Chapter 31 - The 59th Indian National Congress
Chapter 31 - The 59th Indian National Congress

"So long as there is a third party, i.e. the British, these dissensions will not end. These will go on growing. They will disappear only when an iron dictator rules over India for 20 years. For a few years at least, after the end of British rule in India, there must be a dictatorship... No other constitution can flourish in this country and it is so to India's good that she shall be ruled by a dictator, to begin with."

- Subhas Chandra Bose

September 16, 1940.

The Independence of India immediately sent shockwaves across the globe. As though a catalyst of fate, it triggered several decisive events on the world stage:

In the west, British propaganda, aided by the traitor T.V. Soong, has caused US public opinion to shift firmly against China. For allying with Nazi Germany and attacking the British Empire -- the "Bulwark of Freedom" in Europe -- the United States officially censures China by declaring a trade embargo against the fledgling Asian Republic. Oil imports from the Americas were cut. Without imports, the petroleum situation in China quickly plummets into the red.

1_US-Oil-Embargo.jpg

(Custom event.)

Reporting on this, ROC Quartermaster General Chen Jitang sent the following memo to Chiang:

"In an age when the British and Soviets are increasingly motorizing their forces, we now stand in danger of being forced to de-motorized our meager modern formations due to a lack of fuel. If China does not find new sources of oil, our army, air, and naval forces will inevitably become paralyzed by 1942..."

In response, ROC Vice President Li Zongren and Minister of Economy Wen Wenghao issues a directive that China's attempts to product domestic oil -- the 'Daqing Oil Battle' -- must be raised to the highest priority. Last year, the Chinese geological surveys (launched in 1935, see Chapter 9) has discovered a large oil field in Nenjiang Province (Manchuria), between the Songhua and Nen Rivers. The founder of Chinese geology, Li Siguang (an ethnic Mongol), estimated that the Daqing Oil Field contained an estimated 16 billion barrels of oil.

The trouble was extracting it, as China has no experience with oil drilling whatsoever.

2_Daqing-oil-battle.jpg

(The 'Daqing Oil Battle' , waged in desolate lands in an extreme climate, is another renowned chapter of China's drive to self-improvement through bitter hardship.)​

In the East, Japanese society was shaken to its foundations as officers of the Imperial Navy assassinated Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara as well as his foreign minister, Shigemitsu Mamoru. The coup consisted mostly of young officers from the Kōdōha (Imperial Way faction). They accused Shidehara and Mamoru of being cowards and traitors, who refused to take any aggressive actions beneficial to the Japanese Empire even as European spheres of influence in Asia crumble under the Chinese offensive, therefore squandering Japan's greatest opportunity to expand the glory of their divine Emperor.

3_Shidehara.jpg

(Custom event.)

A counter-coup by Imperial Japanese Naval High Command immediately put down the unrest, and most of the junior officers were court martialled and shot. However, the damage has already been done. The social-conservative government that Shidehara carefully built up after the Second Sino-Japanese War (1935) was destroyed virtually overnight. Meanwhile, the new Prime Minister of Japanese -- Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai -- would reverse many of Shidehara's policies in the coming days, beginning with the renunciation of the Second London Naval Treaty signed in March 1936. Many observers believe that it was the Japanese admirals who encouraged the coup to happen in the first place, then pretended to 'restore order' to reap all the benefits.

Over the past five years, the Japanese have rebuilt their shattered army, now fully controlled under naval leadership as the Imperial Japanese Army ceased to exist as a political entity after their virtual annihilation during the Second Sino-Japanese War.

Japan had rebounded to its militaristic nature, and nobody knew where it was headed next.

4_Japan-intel.jpg


-----


In Delhi, delegates of the Indian National Congress gathered for their 59th assembly -- which also marked first INC congress of Free India.

5_Gandhi-Bose-Patel.jpg

(Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and Mahatma Gandhi attending the Indian National Congress. A disgruntled Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel -- who never got along with Bose -- could be seen to the right.)​

Abul Kalam Azad, senior Muslim leader of the INC who was elected to Congress President in March, 1940 to counter Jinnah's call for a Two-State Solution, voluntarily stepped down. Replacing him was Subhas Chandra Bose, the liberator of India who returned to his position as president with almost unanimous approval.

In an fiery opening speech, Bose addressed the delegates to uphold and continue the movement that he had began:

"Yes, India has been freed from the tyranny of British Imperialism, but we must remember that this is not the end of our journey, only the beginning!

"In the last two hundred years, the British have reduced our sacred land from the most wealthy and productive in the world, to its poorest. Two centuries of plunder and mismanagement have filled the India of today with problems both social and economic. Our traditional values lay smashed by white prejudice. Our world-famous textiles lay dismantled beneath the boot of British brutality. Our once efficient agriculure sways on the precarious edge of famine due to English cruelty. Our traders which once covered the Indian Ocean lay bankrupted by European greed. Our communal trust -- after centuries of neighborly coexistence between Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Parsis -- lay shattered by Anglo provocation and disinformation."

"But blaming the past gets us nowhere. We must work now to secure India's future with out own hands, and there is no doubt that we have a long and arduous road ahead of us, my brothers! The revolution is yet unfinished. We cannot be merely satisfied by a free and independent India. No, we must rebuild India from the ashes, to become the proud and strong civilization we were before! And this time, we shall ensure that no white usurper shall ever take it from us again!"

His speech was soon met by a standing ovation and echoing cries of "Jal Hind!" (Hail India!).

Bose did not waste his moment of greatest popularity. Taking advantage of the nationalistic fervor, he proceeded to denounce the top disciples of Gandhi's nonviolent resistance movement -- particularly Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel -- as "patriotic, well-intentioned, but misguided and unrealistic." He went on to completely dissemble the ideology of Satyagraha (nonviolent civil resistance), declaring it to be a "praiseworthy and virtuous fantasy unrealistic in the face of realpolitik."

"We must be strong not only in our minds and spirit," Bose declared in reference to Gandhi's teachings, "but also in deeds and action! We must show them that we will not be beaten! We will not be oppressed! We shall never tolerate imperialism again! And those who attempt it will be met by our steel, our lives, and our very blood!"

"Remember, now and forever, that Our freedom was not given! It was taken!*"

(Bose's famous quote in past tense)

6_India-Ministers-Sliders.jpg

('Netaji' is a custom minister personality. DH did a poor job on Indian leaders' political leanings, and I didn't feel like putting in the effort to fix it all.)

In the ensuing congressional debates, Bose carefully navigated his way through the complex political landscape and negotiated with the various groups to build his cabinet -- the first Indian ruling government for more than a century. The Indian National Congress has always been federalist (pro-provincial autonomy), republican, and socialist. However Bose's vision for India was further left and centrist (centralized power) than the INC mainstream. He could not rely solely on the support of his small political (sub)party, the All India Forward Bloc. Therefore, to successfully concentrate power around himself and carry out his plans for the future of India, he must build an effective government in which every social group could see themselves represented, a strong government that must focus itself on eliminating divisions and promoting unity:

  • Foreign Minister - Sarat Chandra Bose : Sarat was Subhas Chandra Bose's elder brother. A prominent member of the Indian Independence movement, Sarat has alway lent unwavering political support for Bose from within the INC, and dedicated much of his political life to maintaining unity between the Hindu and Muslim majority factions. As the leader of the Forward Bloc in his younger brother's absence, Subhas could absolutely trust Sarat to uphold his intentions in navigating the complex international landscape in this era.

  • Minister of Economics (Armaments) - Lal Bahadur Shastri : Although a loyal follower of Gandhi and key ally of Nehru, Shastri is a firm believer in revitalizing the economy via grassroots movements, and is keenly in touch with the needs of farmers and ranchers. His speech 'Jai Jawan Jai Kishan' (Hail the Farmer, Hail the Soldier) before the congress also left Bose sorely impressed and was quickly adopted into a national slogan.

  • Minister of Law (Security) - Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar : Ambedkar is a Hindu social reformer (who later converted to Buddhism). Despite being one of the first trained economists of the Indian Independence movement, he spent most of his time on legal and social reform. He is best known for his campaigns against social discrimination towards the Dalit (untouchable) castes.

  • Head of Intelligence - Rafi Ahmed Kidwai : An "Islamic Socialist" and Chief Whip of the Swaraj Party (founded in 1923 over distrust of Gandhi's political judgment). Kidwai has a history of working to maintain unity within the party and making sure everyone follows the established political lines. Respected and promoted to become Minister of Communications, Kidwai is the perfect choice to ensure that the right political message is distributed to the people.

  • Minister of Defense (Chief of Staff) - Sardar Baldev Singh : The most prominent Sikh leader of the Indian Independence movement. As the Sikhs overwhelmingly dominate the British-Indian Army that Bose was now converting into the Indian National Army, it did not surprise anyone that Baldev would be chosen to lead them in national defense.

  • Shah Nawaz Khan, whom Bose had recruited to lead the Indian National Army during the liberation campaign, will continue on as the Chief of the Army.

Although Gandhi would remain as the spiritual father of the nation and recognized has its official head of state, Bose stripped most of the Gandhi-Nehru clique followers of their political influence. This would ensure that they would never again oppose him for political leadership over the future of India. It left only one potential obstacle remaining, only one body who still had the power and influence to challenge Bose's rising authority:

"With the independence of India, this body has proudly accomplished all of its objectives. It is now time to reorganize the political future of India, as we focus not on liberation, but reform, industrialization, and education. Thus, as is the expressed desire by our father, Mahatama Gandhi...

"I hereby dissolve the Indian National Congress!"

7_Dissolve_INC.jpg

(Custom event.)

Now, Subhas Chandra Bose was truly the 'Netaji' (respected leader) of India.

And to make sure that order will be enforced during this turbulent time in Indian history, the Indian National Army is rapidly expanded by enlarging each of its four brigades into full divisions.

8_Expand_INA.jpg

(Custom event: 1st phase of INA expansion)



( Next Chapter - United Front in Southern Asia )



1. The opening quote was given by Bose during an interview with the Singaporean Daily in 1944 (our timeline). I've seen arguments from Bose's supporters that his admiration of fascism mellowed out after visiting Europe during WW2, especially with Hitler and Mussolini's racist policies which ran contrary to Bose's belief in socialist equality. But clearly: not enough.

2. In our timeline, Daqing Oil Field was discovered by Li Siguang in 1959, and began production in 1960. With early chinese unification and German technical support, this could have managed much earlier.

3. Shastri's 'Jai Jawan Jai Kishan' slogan came about in our timeline during the 1965 India-Pakistani War, during his term as the 2nd Prime Minister of India. Since India is enrolling in a major war far earlier, I figure his idea would come sooner.

4. Ambedkar was India's 1st Minister of Law in our historical timeline; Kidwai was India's 1st Minister of Communications; and Baldev was our India's 1st Minister of Defense. One could say Nehru did a fairly good job giving representation to the minorities; too bad he never earned the trust of the AIML.

5. Gandhi did indeed wish to dissolve the INC after Independence. However, by that time the INC had gained invincible political status in the eyes of Indians, and thus his followers choose to keep it to dominate the politics of India rather than disband. It's yet another example that Gandhi was... a little too idealistic for politics. I love the man for his unwavering ethics, but he lacks a certain 'practical ruthlessness' that's required for effective leadership.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Nice, like always.

Now on to the questions:

1)
So, USA embargoes China, well ROC is not Japan, they are not that dependant from international trade/overseas colonial exploitation. That being said Daqing Oil won't be available for some time and it's close to USSR border, and I asume that war with Soviets will start faster that oil excavation (at least in any meaningfull numbers), btw will events about Daqing will be few small increases of oil from province, or just one event with big increase? Manchuria is also close to Korea which leads to...
2)
Japan. Poor Kodo-ha, if not Emperor then IJN (fun fact, in polish wiki it's written Kodo-ha but in english it's Kodoha, don't now why). Consolidation of power by Navy is intresting, if somewhat expected, turn of event's but remilitarization of Korea is weird, it's basically given that Jiang will react to this action and I'am quite sure that no one in Japan want's to repeat a catastrophe that was 1935. btw You said that Japanese still have some Yi dynasty members around, and considering remilitarization of Korea plus Syngman Rhee history as an independence activist, wouldn't Japan replace him to strenghten their control over the place? (another fun fact, in english wiki He is just Syngmann Rhee, but in polish it's Rhee Syng-man or Syngmann Rhee)
3)
India. Ahh... Bose, Bose all this work just to be considered "Left-Wing Radical" by Paradox and your rule "Leninist" in this AAR, while your Chinese buddies are considered "Paternal Autocrat" for the same work, where we made a mistake? :D
At least there won't be a shitstorm of theories about your death in TTL :)
On more serious note, I get the idea that beetwen a colonial rule and democracy there will be a transition in form of Dictatorship, but there is a concern, if a benevolent ruler dies during transition, what will happen? One answer is that strongest of His underlings consolidate power and most usually keep it, and India don't really have that much of (somewhat) democratic minded class, especially since Gandhi-Nehru Clique was purged (not literally but still).
 
Well, the Nazi state apparatus didn't really have a civilian industry. Even their big companies used slave labor from POWs or *redacted*. So it isn't unreasonable to think that eventually the Nazis would have been forced to seek more conquests or collapse economically, and I can easily see China or a country in China's sphere being next on that list.
Good point. Although I won't be touching that topic with a 10-ft pole. I like not being banned ^^

I'm excited to see how far down the rabbit hole goes with regards to the development of the new Indian order. Is there a population transfer going from India to Pakistan TTL, and if so, are quite as many people trying to move this time?
Without a full partition, there won't be as much need to move... and certainly in not as great a rush. The pivotal issue is going to be keeping religious tensions from escalating into violence, which spins fear out of control and trigger migrations. I have events planned, but the DH engine doesn't give me the tools to really work this...

1)
So, USA embargoes China, well ROC is not Japan, they are not that dependant from international trade/overseas colonial exploitation. That being said Daqing Oil won't be available for some time and it's close to USSR border, and I asume that war with Soviets will start faster that oil excavation (at least in any meaningfull numbers), btw will events about Daqing will be few small increases of oil from province, or just one event with big increase? Manchuria is also close to Korea which leads to...
Daqing is not meant to fix the oil situation, only to mitigate it. Historic production begins very small, simply because the chinese had no idea what they were doing at the start. I originally set up Daqing to be a single event with limited gains. But now that the timer is coming up I might change it...

Japan. Poor Kodo-ha, if not Emperor then IJN (fun fact, in polish wiki it's written Kodo-ha but in english it's Kodoha, don't now why). Consolidation of power by Navy is intresting, if somewhat expected, turn of event's but remilitarization of Korea is weird, it's basically given that Jiang will react to this action and I'am quite sure that no one in Japan want's to repeat a catastrophe that was 1935. btw You said that Japanese still have some Yi dynasty members around, and considering remilitarization of Korea plus Syngman Rhee history as an independence activist, wouldn't Japan replace him to strenghten their control over the place? (another fun fact, in english wiki He is just Syngmann Rhee, but in polish it's Rhee Syng-man or Syngmann Rhee)
I don't plan on using Yi Un because putting in a new minister (compared to altering an existing one) is kind of a pain, which is part of why I put it into the original chinese negotiations in 1935 XD
My logic for the remilitarization is that the ROC NRA is stretched thin at this stage against multiple foes (major geopolitical change since 1935), and the IJN would gamble that China would not want to start a new war with them.
Perhaps I should have waited until Barbarossa... though too late now.

India. Ahh... Bose, Bose all this work just to be considered "Left-Wing Radical" by Paradox and your rule "Leninist" in this AAR, while your Chinese buddies are considered "Paternal Autocrat" for the same work, where we made a mistake? :D
Western notions of politics often fall short when used to describe Asia, especially during this period when new Asian governments were very experimental about their policies.
I always find it funny that Paradox can't decide what leaning Bose is. In Hearts of Iron 4, Bose is India's fascist leader while the Forward Bloc (the party that Bose leads), is India's communist element. This... doesn't work when you consider the fascism and communism are mortal enemies lol!

On more serious note, I get the idea that beetwen a colonial rule and democracy there will be a transition in form of Dictatorship, but there is a concern, if a benevolent ruler dies during transition, what will happen? One answer is that strongest of His underlings consolidate power and most usually keep it, and India don't really have that much of (somewhat) democratic minded class, especially since Gandhi-Nehru Clique was purged (not literally but still).
Succession is the greatest weakness of autocratic governments, because even the most benevolent leader can't guarantee his successor's motivation.
Undermining a political group's influence is not the same as purging =P And politicians can come back even if they've been purged (as long as they stayed alive). Deng Xiaoping was cast down once and purged twice, yet still returned to become paramount leader of the PRC.
 
Last edited:
My logic for the remilitarization is that the ROC NRA is stretched thin at this stage against multiple foes (major geopolitical change since 1935), and the IJN would gamble that China would not want to start a new war with them.

Problem with this logic is that USSR - ROC war will end sooner or later, unless Japan plans to strike China during it, or Soviets prove far harder nut to crack (both situations would be rather unexpected, but who now) then provoking Jiang would be ill adviced, especially in a long run.

Daqing is not meant to fix the oil situation, only to mitigate it. Historic production begins very small, simply because the chinese had no idea what they were doing at the start. I originally set up Daqing to be a single event with limited gains. But now that the timer is coming up I might change it...

Well, you could try Axis, most of their oil was either synthetic by Germans or extracted from Ploiesti by Romania, and since i doubt that III Reich would want to exchange/trade/whatever mysteries of their (soon to be) jet fuel, ROC could try to hire Romanian specialists for the job.

Succession is the greatest weakness of autocratic governments, because even the most benevolent leader can't guarantee his successor's motivation.
Undermining a political group's influence is not the same as purging =P And politicians can come back even if they've been purged. Deng Xiaoping was cast down once and purged twice, yet still returned to become paramount leader.

True, on the other hand Lenin was succeded by Stalin despite naming Trotsky as His heir, with elimination of most independent politicians in Soviet Union that followed, Piłsudzki was succeded by President Mościcki and General Śmigły-Rydz, despite former being only temporarily solution and later commonly known for His pollitical ineptitude, and Piłsudzki closest supporters either stayed quiet (like Beck) or were sidelined (Sławek, Wieniawa-Długoszewski).
I used word "purge" because I don't think that conflict beetwen Gandhi-Nehru clique and Bose supporters would stay non-violent, especially after the war, it's thirst for power rather than idealism, Gandhi may be fine with being painted monarch but rest of those who losed political influence, not so much.
 
A short special post.

Britain and the Partition of India

This is something else I found during my absence from this AAR, and it helped a great deal in opening additional paths of research for me on the Partition of India:

An Oxford Union debate on the Partition of India (full playlist):


For those who question if Britain would be better able to partition India-Pakistan, the opening proposition gives one of the best counter-arguments: conflict of interest

As the opening speaker of the debate puts nicely: "The Partition was not on Indian or Pakistani terms... it was perhaps the last laugh of British Imperialism"

The British were neither interested in a successful partition, nor did it benefit them any to have a healthy India-Pakistan relationship. If anything, the British Imperial history of divide-and-rule their foes, of promising the same lands to different groups (cough Jerusalem), is a clear indication. The British has always found it to their benefit to see everyone else bickering and fighting among themselves, while they either sweep in to take the gains or to bow out while watching the world burn. Both Field Marshals/Viceroys Wavell and Mountbatten left ample evidence that they saw it as Britain's best interests to pull out as swiftly as possible, to minimize entanglements rather than minimize bloodshed by trying to control the situation. As a result, India was left in a state of total anarchy during the moment when order was most needed. The Indians at this time had no administrative structure, no military/policing force, no budget, et cetera, and were purely at the mercy of the British authorities -- except those British authorities cast aside all responsibility and were specifically ordered to not intervene.

Personally, I don't like to blame Mountbatten because he received specific orders to do this from Clement Attlee. But as Nuremberg has shown: "I was following orders" is not a good enough defense. To watch atrocities unfold and yet do nothing, despite being the only one with the tools and the responsibility to intervene, makes Mountbatten an accomplice in what ultimately transpired.

And even if one could claim that the British weren't responsible for the partition, there's also their policies that ultimately led up to the partition (although there is no denying that elements of Indian and Muslim populace participated in this). This is best done by the last speaker during the debate, an Indian historian who spent much of her life studying the topic:


This is one of many reasons why I consider the British Empire far worse than say, the Nazis. Because the British leaves fires burning across the world, which continue to consume lives decades after their withdraw. Meanwhile, the ghosts of WWII haunts only their victims and is slowly vanishing into history (even the scars of WW2 left in Russian population demographics is slowly healing). The same could not be said for continued and periodically escalating tension in the heavily disputed India-Pakistan-China border -- and that's just one example among many.

(Edit: as I would note below, this is not a question if the British were morally worse, or if a theoretical Nazi Empire would have done more damage. This is the fact that the British Empire did do more damage to the world.)

This is why every time I meet a British neoconservative who claims that their Empire was somehow beneficial to the people Britain once ruled, it just pisses me off.
 
Last edited:
Because the British leaves fires burning across the world, which continue to consume lives decades after their withdraw. Meanwhile, the ghosts of WWII haunts only their victims and is slowly vanishing into history (even the scars of WW2 left in Russian population demographics is slowly healing).
The reason Nazi Germany's fires didn't burn until today or at least for several decade was because Nazi Germany only existed for 13 years and ended getting it's face kicked in extremely hard. Had Nazi Germany won against Russia.... everything east of the Oder up to the Urals if not more would be a nightmare. And the flames probably wouldn't burn until today, because Germany would fan them so hard everything would get burnt completely to ashes before the century ended.

Starting hellish fires was Nazi Germany's BUSINESS, the only reason they didn't burn as much stuff as Britain did was because Britain existed a much longer time.

In any case, gameplay wise.... It looks like a war against America and Japan simultaneously, while critically short on oil, is a disturbingly real possibility! With Paradox naval AI being al fail as it is I don't think they'll be a real threat, but you'll be bottled to the mainland and nearby islands.

On an OOC note, did you write the event for Japan's coup because the original Setting Sun event couldn't stop the AI from producing a large army and you felt the IJN buildup had to be justified narratively?

Well, the Nazi state apparatus didn't really have a civilian industry. Even their big companies used slave labor from POWs or *redacted*. So it isn't unreasonable to think that eventually the Nazis would have been forced to seek more conquests or collapse economically, and I can easily see China or a country in China's sphere being next on that list.
In OTL Germany's economically was constantly on the brink of collapse and they basically kept starving off that collapse by pillaging their neighbors (Poland, France, parts of Russia...) If they beat Russia the plunder will sate them for longer than normal but not forever unless there are reforms.
 
This AAR is quite interesting, I've been silently watching it since the beginning.
:p
I'm wondering what will happen with Japan and Korea, specially Japan.
Keep the amazing work :)
another fun fact, in english wiki He is just Syngmann Rhee, but in polish it's Rhee Syng-man or Syngmann Rhee
:p
Just came to say that in the korean way, it is Rhee Syng-man, as Rhee is the family name.
Just like, for example; Park Chung-hee, Kim Il-sung.

While in the western way you are right, it would be basically Syngman Rhee.
If I'm not wrong, the same happens with japanese and chinese names, not really sure to be honest.
 
This is one of many reasons why I consider the British Empire far worse than say, the Nazis. Because the British leaves fires burning across the world, which continue to consume lives decades after their withdraw. Meanwhile, the ghosts of WWII haunts only their victims and is slowly vanishing into history (even the scars of WW2 left in Russian population demographics is slowly healing). The same could not be said for continued and periodically escalating tension in the heavily disputed India-Pakistan-China border -- and that's just one example among many.
Sorry, I agree with you more than most, but the notion that the British Empire was worse than the Nazis is absurd. The contexts of their conquests were completely different, with the Nazis conquering developed nation-states and the British conquering mainly underdeveloped tribes, the exception being India, which hadn't had anything approaching a united state since the fall of the Mughals. Plus, the Nazis were forced out of their conquests. You simply can't compare the two cases. Overall, there's a difference between saying the British did more damage than the Nazis(which I am open to) and the British were morally worse than the Nazis(which I am not).
 
Problem with this logic is that USSR - ROC war will end sooner or later, unless Japan plans to strike China during it, or Soviets prove far harder nut to crack (both situations would be rather unexpected, but who now) then provoking Jiang would be ill adviced, especially in a long run.
Mmmh, now you're making me wonder if I made a mistake here. So you're thinking it'd be to Japanese interests to keep Korea demilitarized unless they specifically want to provoke a war with ROC?


I used word "purge" because I don't think that conflict beetwen Gandhi-Nehru clique and Bose supporters would stay non-violent, especially after the war, it's thirst for power rather than idealism, Gandhi may be fine with being painted monarch but rest of those who losed political influence, not so much.
To quote Mao, "political power comes out from the barrel of a gun".
This is why Bose would naturally make controlling the army a top priority. Nehru and Patel also can't start a war without abandoning their nonviolence claims, thus undermining their legitimacy. It's more likely they'd cause a lot of social unrest than start a civil war.


The reason Nazi Germany's fires didn't burn until today or at least for several decade was because Nazi Germany only existed for 13 years and ended getting it's face kicked in extremely hard. Had Nazi Germany won against Russia.... everything east of the Oder up to the Urals if not more would be a nightmare. And the flames probably wouldn't burn until today, because Germany would fan them so hard everything would get burnt completely to ashes before the century ended.

I'm reminded of Dan Carlin's podcast series, The Wrath of the Khans, when he discussed -- despite how the mongols burned down everything around them and exterminating entire countries, modern historians try to justify their actions by propositions like "but Pax Mongolica reforged east-west trade and opened the exchange of ideas" or "they destroyed a rotten structure to be replaced by a better one". In that series he questions: if Germany had been a more little successful or, if we had a few more centuries for memories to fade, maybe people might try to do the same thing with Nazism, like how "World War 2 ended the era of imperialism" or something.
( I am by no means trying to justify either. I still remember the horror I felt when I first read about Generalplan Ost. )


On an OOC note, did you write the event for Japan's coup because the original Setting Sun event couldn't stop the AI from producing a large army and you felt the IJN buildup had to be justified narratively?
No. I could just avoid pointing out that Japan had a buildup =P I wrote the event because I'm not convinced the navy would just lie still when there was so much opportunity available. Chinese never truly humbled Japan in this AAR the way America did, which means their pride is still very much there.


This AAR is quite interesting, I've been silently watching it since the beginning.
:p
I'm wondering what will happen with Japan and Korea, specially Japan.
Keep the amazing work :)
:p
Just came to say that in the korean way, it is Rhee Syng-man, as Rhee is the family name.
Just like, for example; Park Chung-hee, Kim Il-sung.
I welcome you to post more =P
Ah I should be consistent too -- being doing 'last name first' for both Chinese and Japanese so no reason for Korean leaders not to get same treatment.


Sorry, I agree with you more than most, but the notion that the British Empire was worse than the Nazis is absurd. The contexts of their conquests were completely different, with the Nazis conquering developed nation-states and the British conquering mainly underdeveloped tribes, the exception being India, which hadn't had anything approaching a united state since the fall of the Mughals. Plus, the Nazis were forced out of their conquests. You simply can't compare the two cases. Overall, there's a difference between saying the British did more damage than the Nazis(which I am open to) and the British were morally worse than the Nazis(which I am not).

I didn't say the British were morally worse than the Nazis. I said "worse", after highlighting the damage they did to the world. I'm not discussing what damage a theoretical Nazi Empire might have done. I'm comparing what the two actually did. History is a study of facts. It'd be different if we're talking philosophy.

"We were civilizing barbarians" is the classic excuse for Imperialism. It completely ignores the fact that most places that were taken over by European imperialists had an established, native, and often stable socioeconomic order, which were then devalued, marginalized, or purged altogether from history precisely so that the Westerner could justify their actions with "white man's burden".

India is the one I highlight here. What about countries like Egypt and Iraq who formed complex administrative hierarchies when the Britons were still scratching in the dirt? What about Somalia and Arabian coast whose cosmopolitan traders once carried half of the world's trade? Is it a coincidence that many of those places, which were once cultural and commerce capitals of the world, are now the basketcases of anarchy?

(Btw, if it was purely a moral argument, I agree with you: the Nazi are more evil. )
 
Last edited:
I didn't say the British were morally worse than the Nazis. I said "worse", after highlighting the damage they did to the world. I'm not discussing what damage a theoretical Nazi Empire might have done. I'm comparing what the two actually did. History is a study of facts. It'd be different if we're talking philosophy.

"We were civilizing barbarians" is the classic excuse for Imperialism. It completely ignores the fact that most places that were taken over by European imperialists had an established, native, and often stable socioeconomic order, which were then devalued, marginalized, or purged altogether from history precisely so that the Westerner could justify their actions with "white man's burden".

India is the one I highlight here. What about countries like Egypt and Iraq who formed complex administrative hierarchies when the Britons were still scratching in the dirt? What about Somalia and Arabian coast whose cosmopolitan traders once carried half of the world's trade? Is it a coincidence that many of those places, which were once cultural and commerce capitals of the world, are now the basketcases of anarchy?

(Btw, if it was purely a moral argument, I agree with you: the Nazi are more evil. )
I think we've had this conversation before, but I only think it's fair to consider consequences adjusted for time and opportunity. For example, Barack Obama objectively has killed more people than Ted Bundy, but no one would say he's worse than Bundy because Ted Bundy was just a guy and Obama was the most powerful man in the world. Similarly, Nazi Germany killed 17 million people in 12 years, as a direct result of their actions. I couldn't tell you the amount the Brits killed over the course of their existence but I'd wager that their rate is less than the Nazis. That's just how I measure impacts in a historical sense, and I understand if you disagree.

I also didn't mean to imply a sort of White Man's burden. I also didn't mean to say that the people the British colonized weren't advanced. However, the states formed in the wake of British colonialism did not exist before; meanwhile, the countries the Nazis took over existed before and so could simply be restored. When the British did take over a preexisting state the decolonization process was smoother as in, as you say, Egypt; although Egypt had issues my understanding is that they resulted more from the mess caused by the creation of Israel, and the Kingdom of Egypt was basically restored when the Brits left. The same goes for places the British didn't directly rule in general, such as Iraq and Transjordan.

That said, the post-Nazi transition also wasn't exactly smooth. A good analogy to Kashimir is Yugoslavia; issues leading to the breakup of Yugoslavia can be traced back to the Nazi support for the Ustase in Croatia; although there were other factors, the same can be said for much of the British colonial legacy. In the Soviet Union, too, scars were more than psychological, as the Nazi Reichcommisarriats exacerbated ethnic tensions, particularly with regard to the Tatars. Of course I don't mean to downplay the greater role of the Soviet government in these tensions, but the Nazi role remains.

Overall I just don't think you can compare the British Empire to Nazi Germany; the circumstances of the two countries were just too different. A comparison of Britain and France, or Britain and the United States, would IMO be more useful. That said, I have enjoyed this conversation.
 
So you're thinking it'd be to Japanese interests to keep Korea demilitarized unless they specifically want to provoke a war with ROC?

Yes, Japan is controled by Navy, and fight in China is almost completly land fight, it's not like invading Indonesia or Pacific isles where IJN does most of the job. Navy would't be intrested in giving their influence back to IJA and civil administration plus Imperial Court wouldn't be intrested in possible repeat of 1935, Japan relies on resources from around the world, that's why they attacked China in the first place. In my opinion Japan gains more by attacking weaker side in the WW II, as there is a lot to gain from both sides, and both sides will need Japanese support on Pacific theatre.

Now, I don't want do get in to a rabbit hole that is National Socialism here, if only because discussing who is worst or better or who and how should we compare them to is, In my opinion, not really giving the topic proper threatment.
 
I welcome you to post more =P
Ah I should be consistent too -- being doing 'last name first' for both Chinese and Japanese so no reason for Korean leaders not to get same treatment.
:p I'll do so.

Oh I have the same issue haha, I don't know why but when I think of Syngman Rhee I write it in that way.
With other koreans I manage to remember how the naming goes, but Rhee is a special case I bet haha.

I've got a question, will Japan try at another time round 3 with China?
 
You forgot the militant Sikhs =P (we'll skip Jains since they never cause any trouble, and the Parsis are too low in numbers).

Yeah I'm actually not sure how deeply I'll get into the topic. After all, Hearts of Iron series isn't a "social problems simulator", it's a "military problems simulator", and India's religious issues are so complex the only equivalent of it I can think of is the Reformation.

GulMacet you're much more academic of a scholar than I am, so feel free to list the individual issues that this AAR should at least bring up and I'll see how I envision this timeline would solve them. Some of them I plan to tackle in future chapters, some... beyond my understanding. Notice that through all my writing of China I never tackled the BIG problem that gave the Communist Party all their ammunition: Land Reform.

(also, a lot of the cleansing that happened in India were a series of atrocity - counter-atrocity - spiraling out of control. The Jammu incident you linked was definitely a case of this.)

The few things I can say are:

1. Chiang is pulling his leg out as soon as possible and letting Bose deal with it. I've repeated in previous chapters that he doesn't really have an interest in non-Chinese parts of Asia other than "kick imperialists out". Now can Bose deal with it effectively? I've read some very clashing views, and I plan to try to find a middle path. Like any heroic leader, the man has his strengths and faults.

2. Princely States will be annexed by military force, if they haven't surrendered already (Hyderabad is already taken remember?). In this world, the Princely States will NOT get a choice.

3. The way I see it: the Partition of India, with its dislocation of millions and forcing independent territories to decide allegiances, made an existing ethic-religious conflict much, MUCH worse. Furthermore, the lack of an Indian military at the time plus an unwillingness by British to restore order meant it was total anarchy. A lot of issues could have been kept restrained by timely decision-making. Instead, they were excerbated by a total administrative paralysis.


Yeah... India and Britain are not my academic focus, China is, so my opinions on this topic are no more scholarly than yours. :)

You are fully correct that administrative paralysis did a lot of the damage. On the other hand, what were the British supposed to do? Policing their mercantile interests is exactly how they got into India in the first place, and they had already committed to decolonization. Any military intervention - and I highly doubt the armed mobs hell-bent on ethnic cleansing would have been stopped by anything less - would have been seen as a total reverse on decolonization and an attempt to keep the Empire together by force. It's one of those 'damned if you don't, damned if you do'-type of situations. Not that they aren't responsible for creating it in first place, of course.

You are also correct that some of the issues can be dealt with properly here - instead of waffling about, the new Indian government should immediately arrest all rulers of the Princely States for treason and forcibly seize their lands. Same goes for the fanatics, wartime might actually be an advantage here. You can just call them 'British holdouts/collaborators' and after shooting a couple of pogroming mobs, they will get the message and the situation will calm down. Combined with comprehensive land reform (and handing out what you seized from the Princes to your loyalists) to get the Communists on board, that could somewhat stabilize the situation.

I would suggest writing a special event that gives India a ton of dissent, perhaps also a few rebelling milita divisions, to simulate that they are going to spend the next few years sorting themselves out (what exactly that entails can be left to the imagination) and not building a massive war machine (because that's pretty much the only thing you can do in DH. Military problem simulator etc.).
 
I think we've had this conversation before, but I only think it's fair to consider consequences adjusted for time and opportunity. For example, Barack Obama objectively has killed more people than Ted Bundy, but no one would say he's worse than Bundy because Ted Bundy was just a guy and Obama was the most powerful man in the world. Similarly, Nazi Germany killed 17 million people in 12 years, as a direct result of their actions. I couldn't tell you the amount the Brits killed over the course of their existence but I'd wager that their rate is less than the Nazis. That's just how I measure impacts in a historical sense, and I understand if you disagree.
You're probably right that we're touched upon this before. The horse is probably already beaten dead. lol.

I've read some about how the Soviet Union fanned ethnic tensions, especially in Central Asia. I'm far less read on Germany's actions in this department -- mostly as I doubted they've stayed long enough to really make an impact. In my opinion, cultural friction isn't something that can be bred in just a few years of occupation. But if you have a recommended source on the topic of German-caused Yugoslavian divisions, I'd be interested :)

I generally don't judge by intensity so much as counterbalance. In my opinion, how long a nation spread out its bad deeds doesn't matter. Slow atrocity is no better than fast atrocity. What I do care is about positive deeds vs negative deeds -- the "karma" balance, if you will. Yes, a powerful person will cause more harm, but they also have the opportunity to do more good. Has Britain improved the per capita GDP of its colonial subjects like Japan? Has Britain enacted universal education and healthcare for its subjects like the Soviet Union? Has Britain brought in equal opportunities for all races like China does during Sinicization? Has Britain built infrastructure in a way where the locals actually prospered rather than suffered more famines than before? Those are the questions I asked when gauging if a nation's influence is good or bad.

This may simply be a difference in philosophical viewpoints between us, which is fine ^^


Yes, Japan is controled by Navy, and fight in China is almost completly land fight, it's not like invading Indonesia or Pacific isles where IJN does most of the job. Navy would't be intrested in giving their influence back to IJA and civil administration plus Imperial Court wouldn't be intrested in possible repeat of 1935, Japan relies on resources from around the world, that's why they attacked China in the first place. In my opinion Japan gains more by attacking weaker side in the WW II, as there is a lot to gain from both sides, and both sides will need Japanese support on Pacific theatre.
I agree that Japan will take advantage of whomever it seems to be losing the war. Though I don't think whom the 'loser' is will be obvious for a long time and IJN may not feel so patient. Sure Britain is getting punched pretty hard now, but America still has treaty obligations to protect Indonesia/Australia and America is a mighty endgame boss.

I'll see about rolling back the re-militarizing event. May still have a save right before partition...


I've got a question, will Japan try at another time round 3 with China?
I have no plans for Japan after the assassination events... you might have read enough discussions to know that I can't quite decide their best options.
This is when I really wish DH had a most autonomous AI like in EU4.


Who now control's Bhutan and Nepal? I think Bhutan will fall under China's control while Nepal under India's.
Nobody.
In my opinion, a friendly India-China relationship is actually detrimental to Nepal and Bhutan. Because when India and China are at odds, the two small states become strategic partners and can play the big nations off each other for investment/aid influence (unless they're idiots like Ukraine and blatantly provoke one side). When India-China are friends... nobody really cares about two tiny states in the Himelayan mountains whose only notable produce is Sherpas.

You are fully correct that administrative paralysis did a lot of the damage. On the other hand, what were the British supposed to do? Policing their mercantile interests is exactly how they got into India in the first place, and they had already committed to decolonization. Any military intervention - and I highly doubt the armed mobs hell-bent on ethnic cleansing would have been stopped by anything less - would have been seen as a total reverse on decolonization and an attempt to keep the Empire together by force. It's one of those 'damned if you don't, damned if you do'-type of situations. Not that they aren't responsible for creating it in first place, of course.
Slow down the pull out process. Give power to the local administrators. Pass control of the British-Indian military. THEN enact partition and withdraw. If you watch the debate videos above, Mountebatten's policy of hastening the whole process is sharply criticized as one of the key reasons why the Partition turned into a disaster.

This is one of the reasons why I wrote the process Bose gave to Jinnah as: go build your local governments first, then we'll talk how to handle your relationship with rest of India.

I would suggest writing a special event that gives India a ton of dissent, perhaps also a few rebelling milita divisions, to simulate that they are going to spend the next few years sorting themselves out (what exactly that entails can be left to the imagination) and not building a massive war machine (because that's pretty much the only thing you can do in DH. Military problem simulator etc.).
I'm trying to draft a reoccuring event that randomly cause one of 3 results:
- minor dissent due to religious-ethnic tensions (successful suppression)
- major dissent due to tensions escalating into violence
- all out regional rebellion
 
Last edited:
So any updates yet?
 
Chapter 32 - United Front in Southern Asia
Chapter 32 - United Front in Southern Asia

"My ambition is much higher than independence. Through the deliverance of India, I seek to deliver the so-called weaker races of the Earth from the crushing heels of Western exploitation in which England is the greatest partner."

- 'Mahatma' Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

While Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was hard at work establishing the new India government in New Delhi, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Aung San are equally occupied establishing their new administrations in Pakistan and Burma. The territories and populations of both Pakistan and Burma were considerably smaller and more manageable than that of India; however both men also faced the daunting challenge of building a government mostly from scratch.

Neither Pakistan nor Burma were really history entities. The Burmese, with exception of the decentralized Pagan Kingdom (13th century) and the mighty Taungoo Empire (16th century), have mostly been a collection of tiny independent states including Ava/Myinsaing, Pegu/Ramanya, Arakan, La Na, and various Shan States. Meanwhile the concept of Pakistan did not even exist before 1933, for it straddled the historic boundaries between Persia and Hindustan, influenced by both sides while lacking an identity of its own. Problems were exacerbated as both Jinnah's All-India Muslim League and Aung San's Communist Party of Burma were fairly new parties. Neither political bodies have anything like the complex hierarchy and organizational maturity of the Indian National Congress which had been founded in 1885 -- and Bose continued to tap for personnel resources despite its official disbandment.

1_Burma-Paki.jpg

To honor the 'Tiered-State Compromise' agreement between Bose and Jinnah, the All-India Muslim League was given three years of time to set up their independent administrative and judicial bodies, with zero interference from the Indian government at New Delhi. It was agreed upon that in three years time post-Independence, the states of PAKSTAN will rejoin the Indian Federation. This slow transition would not only allow the Pakistani to develop laws and identities that would better suit a Muslim-majority populace, but also (hopefully) reduce ethnic-religious tensions and discourage mass migrations. Pakistan will still be Indian in the future, with sufficient time given for both sides to reach a compromise in all things. Thus, Bose has provided a clear signal that although he was a Hindu leader, the Muslims could place their trust in him.

However, the same offer was not extended to the Princely States. The largest Princely States -- Hyderabad as well as Jammu & Kashmir -- had already been crushed by Chinese and Indian forces during the liberation campaign. The most prestigious of these princes, Nizam Mir Osman Ali Khan of Hyderabad, still lies in Indian military custody after he was captured by the Chinese NRA 200th Division during its lightning blitz to Bombay. The Punjab States, Baluchistan States, Sikkim, Bahawalpur, Nagar Haveli, Manipur, and others have also been overran during the southern offensive. Since then, Bose has expressed no interest in restoring the sovereignty of these feudal states. They were instead placed under direct military administration by the newly expanded Indian National Army, and would remain so until new civilian governments may be built to replace the obsolete, feudal institutions.

2_Princely-States.jpg

For all remaining Princely States, Bose issued only one choice: either surrender, join India, and be given a position of influence in the new administration, or face the might of the Indian National Army (plus its Chinese allies) and be captured as a traitor to Indian nationhood.

With British support nowhere in sight, the remaining Princely States acquiesced one by one.

As the consolidation of power in the south continued, many conservatives in the Chinese government grew wary of the fact they have just established two socialist states south of the Chinese border. Subhas Chandra Bose had strong Marxist ideals and pro-Soviet sympathies that grew only more apparent now that he was in power. Meanwhile Aung San made no secret of it as he was, after all, the founder of the Communist Party of Burma.

3_Union-of-Burma-flag.jpg

(The real flag of Aung San's Union of Burma. Notice it's similarity to the ROC/Kuomintang flag.
I'm not skilled enough at graphics editing to replace all the ingame banners with this
)​

However, when these conservatives and right-wingers in the Republic of China government approached Chiang Kai-shek with their concerns, Chiang responded with only one line:

"We do not tell our neighbors how to run their administration, just as we do not welcome any western states telling us how to run ours!"

If communism was Aung San's or Subhas Chandra Bose's choice, then so be it. He could hardly even accuse them of being idealistically left-winged when he own son Chiang Ching-kuo still wore Trotskyist-Red gloves in Shanghai.


...


With the continental lands of South Asia secured from the borders of Iran to the Strait of Malacca, Chiang Kai-shek and his German advisers under Alexander von Falkenhausen establishes the 'South Asia Defense Command'. Unlike China, which had gone through nearly three decades of nonstop warfare, the nations of South Asia are largely inexperienced with modern combat. Therefore, it was essential for them to work together, to defend the southern flank and protect their newfound independence.

...Especially as China turns its eyes north to face down the red colossus.

4_Military-Control.jpg

The 'South Asia Defense Command' will be a partnership between three major powers: China, India, and Thailand, supplemented by the smaller states of Vietnam, Burma, Pakistan, Nepal, and Bhutan. Collective defense of the region will be further subdivided between the Southeastern and Southwestern Commands:

  • The southeast included all of Indochina, running from the Chinese-Vietnamese borders down to Singapore and then to Rangoon. This region will be defended by the combined efforts of Thai, Chinese, and Vietnamese troops (once available from training), with the Thai Army serving as both overall command and the main reserve. Since the entire region is dominated by rainforests, Chinese NRA forces will be trusting the Thai's superior experience with jungle terrain and warfare. Authority will be placed in the hands of Marshal Plaek Phiunsongkhram of Thailand, who was also the Prime Minister, Minister of Defense, and de-facto ruler of the nation.

  • The southwest included all of the Indian subcontinent, running from the Iranian and Afghan borders, down to southern tip of India including the islands of Sri Lanka and the Maldives, then east along the Bay of Bengal shores until Rangoon. This massive region will be placed under the responsibility of the Indian National Army, to be supported by Pakistani, Burmese, Nepalese, and Bhutanese elements as the Indians see fit. Authority will be delegated by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose to Sardar Bardev Singh, India's 1st Minister of Defense and leader of the Panthic Party who represented Sikh interests (whom in turn dominated the rank and file of the British Indian Army).

5_SubhasBose-BardevSingh-MaBufang-Phibun.jpg

(Leaders of the South Asia Defense Command,
from left to right: Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, Sardar Baldev Singh, Ma Bufang, Plaek Phiunsongkhram
)​

To support and advise the South Asian nations, as well as serve as the commander of Chinese forces remaining in South Asia, Chiang Kai-shek pulled the ex-warlord general Ma Bufang, Governor of Qinghai-Xinjiang and commander of the 3rd (Northwest) War Zone. As the ruler of Qinghai, Ma Bufang had by far the most experience of any Chinese commander in dealing with ethnic and religious diversity. He had fought the Sino-Tibetan War of 1930, the East Turkestan Independence War, the Ili Rebellion, and other Sino-Soviet border conflicts. However he was better known as a socialist governor than a general, as he had turned Qinghai into one of the more progressive provinces in China through social and economic reforms. A Hui Muslim, Ma Bufang was known for his tolerance towards other religions, including personally attending local pagan ceremonies and allowing Christian missionaries to establish schools. He was a strong supporter for the blending of Nationalism and Islam, lending longtime support to Chinese Imams such as Hu Songshan (Sa'd al-Din). However, he was also an adherent of the modernist Yihewani/Ikhwan Muslim Brotherhood in China, and therefore had little patience for the Salafist Sunni-revivalist Movement which he saw as backwards and outdated.

In some ways this would serve as yet another trial: to see how well Chinese Muslims could work alongside those closer to the Middle Eastern states.

In terms of military forces, the South Asia Defense Command had the following:

  • China: 22 infantry divisions (20 in the India, 2 in Singapore/Malay), plus the entire 1st Fleet (2 light cruisers, 15 destroyers, 5 transports).
  • Thailand: 4 infantry divisions, 1 mountain division, 1 interceptor ('24) wing, 1 tactical bomber ('24) wing.
  • Burma: 1 garrison division.
  • India: 4 infantry divisions, +12 infantry/garrison divisions being reformed (ready in 4 months).
  • Vietnam, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan: none, local military formations being rebuilt.

6_SouthAsiaDefense.jpg

ROC chief strategist Bai Chongxi believed that the British, after being dealt a series of blows across their Empire, would not be ready to spare forces for recovery of the India subcontinent for at least a year. Otherwise, a mere 32 divisions spread thin across the entirety of South Asia would stand no chance of defending against a concerted offensive. Nevertheless, political sensitivity -- in addition to supply issues -- simply do not permit large quantities of Chinese troops to remain in India. One could only hope that more Indian troops would be trained soon to cover the defense of the south.


...


September 19th, 1940: The Italian Army, after driving a significant number of British troops into the inescapable Qattara Depression, fails in their 'final offensive' against staunch British resistance. The British would begin their counterattack less than 20 hours later, showing that despite temporary Italian gains after the seizure of Gibraltar, British resistance in Egypt is far from over.

7_Battle-of-Moghara.jpg

8_India-religious-tension.jpg

September 20th: In the aftermath of Indian independence, ethnic and religious tensions begin to rise. The British Imperialists have spent over two centuries fanning conflicts between the two dominant religious groups -- Hindus and Muslims -- as well as between the hundreds of ethnic groups that populate India, in order to exploit local differences for their 'Divide-and-Rule' policy. Unfortunately, these differences would not simply vanish overnight just because the British were removed. Now, it is up to Bose and the new Indian authorities to keep the turmoil suppressed until a new administration can bring back the rule of law.

The first outbreak of violence began in Calcutta, as Muslims and Hindus clash over their differences in Bose's hometown. Thankfully, Calcutta was also one of the first Indian cities liberated by the Chinese advance, and Bose has already had time to set up local administrative and enforcement structures. The religious riots were quickly suppressed, with a minimum of casualties on both sides.

(This is a custom event that is random, repeating, and has three possible outcome. This is the easiest outcome with only a minor +1% dissent)

September 21st: Pakistan and Burma weren't having an easy time either. Political struggles were underway in both newly established states as their political parties try to build a new government administration from scratch.

9_Independence-struggle.jpg

10_Treaty-of-Craiova.jpg

September 21st: Bulgaria joins the Soviet Union and Hungary in demanding Romanian lands. In the Treaty of Craiova, Bulgarian demanded the return of Dobrich which had been seized by the Romanians after the 2nd Balkan War in 1913. Unusually, the Treaty was approved by all the major European powers, including Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union -- despite the fact that Britain and France had guaranteed Romanian territorial integrity.



( Next Chapter - Churchill's Gambits )



Notes:
1. I didn't spend much time picking the ministers of Burma/Pakistan and mostly let the game decide. Burma because the info was too hard to find; Pakistan because the entity is temporary anyway.

2. In our history, Ma Bufang became the Kuomintang Supreme Commander of the Northwest until he was defeated by the Communists, then served as Republic of China's ambassador to Egypt and later Saudi Arabia until his death.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Hmmmm.... I wonder if letting the Reds have the south will lead to some dissent when China goes to destroy the USSR... and it will certainly ensure post-war relations with Germany are not good.
 
Hmmmm.... I wonder if letting the Reds have the south will lead to some dissent when China goes to destroy the USSR... and it will certainly ensure post-war relations with Germany are not good.

The more I read, the more I find this topic murky. I'm not entirely so sure that Fascism and Communism are as diehard enemies as Hitler always makes it out to be. We're so used to ignoring their one similarity -- there are a lot of Socialist elements in both forms of government. For a good example, just look at Mussolini's many quotes on socialism, plutocracy, economic redistribution, and social equality. I could already see Lenin applauding in the audience to some of them:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini

Another example: while I disagree with TIK's recent video on this topic of 'Nazis were socialists', I think it makes a potent (and very underexplored) argument.