Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I do also recall that the vote for India in particular involved more than the usual amount of backstabbing and deception, no doubt causing TBC to fall out his chair in ecstasy.
As to our fine authAAR, I hope things are going well for you after what I'm sure has been a trying time.
To be entirely honest, I was prepared to stick to my british pledge and vote for India to stay with them, because it would make no difference. However, Japan were very insistent I break it, and ultimately, my own pact cohesion was far more important than the british vote for Germany, esepcially as breaking the pact did not gain Britain any advantage because they would immediately burn their new vote as a veto.
Being sneaky and underhand is far less effective than making good deals and sticking to them.
Had I gone through with it, I would have had some in with the british after the fact, a potential point of reconciliation. As is, I have an in with the free India movement as an obvious and powerful ally who can help them out, without the strings a similar Japanese deal would entail.
For North Africa, we saw Japan 'break ranks' with the Comintern leaders to vote with its point score interests for 16.3, forcing Turkey to exercise a veto, leaving 16.2 as the points scored for that one. And meaning the North African states will be broken up as puppets and not direct Turkish rule within the UGNR.
A fairly standard vote was made on Italy, with it retained under direct Turkish rule instead of either being puppeted or given more autonomy within the Comintern. Ostensibly a big initial win for Turkey, but how it will pan out in the post-war world will be a challenge for them, no doubt.
Had I gone through with it, I would have had some in with the british after the fact, a potential point of reconciliation. As is, I have an in with the free India movement as an obvious and powerful ally who can help them out, without the strings a similar Japanese deal would entail.
It would have been very helpful for the UK-Soviet relationship, but that relationship isn't especially important to Moscow given the UK's weak post-war position. And yes, it does give the Soviets a lot of influence with the Indians.
Correct. Anywhere Japan broke from the Comintern position is where the agreement did not cover. IIRC the Comintern wanted something like 18 voting positions and negotiated for about 15 of them (4x3 for Round 2 votes and 3 for India vote).
Yup. As the main architect of the plan, it was designed to keep Japan alive, at the table and a reasonably powerful...power. And designed to make Russia as powerful and stable long term as possible. Turkey was my secondary concern, and I really didn't care (or believe) they'd hold any hard power in North Africa for very long. The wider comintern collectively would, and will, as we empower and rebuild the post colonial states there, but I never thought an Ottoman style province from Atlantic to Egypt would work.
That's the other one where I was fine on giving it them for other negotiations, because I believed that whilst communism is super popular in the country (and they would stay in the comintern), they won't be staying under turkey for very long.
It would have been very helpful for the UK-Soviet relationship, but that relationship isn't especially important to Moscow given the UK's weak post-war position. And yes, it does give the Soviets a lot of influence with the Indians.
Yeah, I think now it's more a matter of north sea negotions because I've got the baltic locked down hard.
With the Indians, it's going to be a three way pull between the US, Japan and Russia, maybe Turkey if persia sticks with them and the Persian gulf gets super important.
Correct. Anywhere Japan broke from the Comintern position is where the agreement did not cover. IIRC the Comintern wanted something like 18 voting positions and negotiated for about 15 of them (4x3 for Round 2 votes and 3 for India vote).
It didn't need to cover everything. There were things neither Japan nor I cared about, and some things that were just 'meh' whether they supported it or not.
I have to assume Finland is a Turkish puppet because Bullfilter declared war and chose the wargoal while the Soviet AI probably never specified anything. I remember reading an AAR on here long ago, and player Albania allied with Germany, using them to conquer a series of puppets that eventually conquered most of the world. It's an obvious exploit, and I usually tag over to my ally and declare the proper wargoal because it bugs me otherwise, but I don't think it's too big a deal seeing how the borders will be messy anyways.
The communists in the SU became more and more into the minority in their partnership with other nations with a Finland still under Mannerheim, the hero of the war for independence and former zarist General, and a Denmark still with a King. Both are definitely more leaning to the US and Turkey.
Unfortunately, the health emergency I mentioned earlier has become a bereavement, so my full re-engagement will be further delayed as my brother and I make the necessary arrangements for our mother, may she Rest In Peace.
But please feel free to continue any AAR comments in the interim, as I’ll still be looking at those when I can and will get around to replying in due course. They remain a pleasure and by no means any kind of unwelcome distraction or burden.
Sorry to hear about your mother. My sincere condoleances. If you weren't halfway across the world, I'd offer to play some music at the funeral.
India was interesting as I had hoped to use Germany's vote there to wrangle just a little more support for an independent Germany, but of course it turned out pretty much everyone was already locked in on Germany by that point thanks to Kelebek's machinations...
As for the greater Turkish empire, I'd love to see it succeed, but I'm not holding my breath...
India was interesting as I had hoped to use Germany's vote there to wrangle just a little more support for an independent Germany, but of course it turned out pretty much everyone was already locked in on Germany by that point thanks to Kelebek's machinations...
Honestly, if I could gaeuntee my super competent diplomats and statesmen would be running the show after the conference ended, Germany would have been an independent comintern member, because that makes a lot more sense long term with the view of eventually turning the entire comintern into a big socialist mega union or federation.
As is, I must assume that won't begin to happen until stalin dies, so I needed to put the USSR in the best possible place to ensure it was the premier superpower, and also had a ton of other socialist and communist parties, movements and peoples outside of Moscow. Fortunately, all of the really crazy ones are in the balkans and thus turkey's problem, but the german and Italian socialists are going to be very influential going forwards...
As some of you may have seen on one of my other threads, COVID has now added its unwanted presence to delay my plans to round this one off. It may not happen at once, but it will happen!
As some of you may have seen on one of my other threads, COVID has now added its unwanted presence to delay my plans to round this one off. It may not happen at once, but it will happen!
The longer you go without writing otherwise, the longer my uber internationalist SU gets to live and strengthen! The workers of the world will not be enslaved to the whims of Australian cricket!
To be entirely honest, I was prepared to stick to my british pledge and vote for India to stay with them, because it would make no difference. However, Japan were very insistent I break it, and ultimately, my own pact cohesion was far more important than the british vote for Germany, esepcially as breaking the pact did not gain Britain any advantage because they would immediately burn their new vote as a veto.
Being sneaky and underhand is far less effective than making good deals and sticking to them.
Had I gone through with it, I would have had some in with the british after the fact, a potential point of reconciliation. As is, I have an in with the free India movement as an obvious and powerful ally who can help them out, without the strings a similar Japanese deal would entail.
Would I be correct in thinking the Japan-Comintern pact simply didn't include any pledges on North Africa?
Yes, I'm inclined to agree holding on to Italy could prove challenging for Turkey over the medium term.
It would have been very helpful for the UK-Soviet relationship, but that relationship isn't especially important to Moscow given the UK's weak post-war position. And yes, it does give the Soviets a lot of influence with the Indians.
Yes, Italy will be a tough and probably violent one. Especially given one can throw in unleashed regional and political differences, the tyranny of foreign occupation and - to cap it off - highly violent and powerful rival Mafia factions, nurturing codes of vendetta and many mutual grudges.
Correct. Anywhere Japan broke from the Comintern position is where the agreement did not cover. IIRC the Comintern wanted something like 18 voting positions and negotiated for about 15 of them (4x3 for Round 2 votes and 3 for India vote).
Yup. As the main architect of the plan, it was designed to keep Japan alive, at the table and a reasonably powerful...power. And designed to make Russia as powerful and stable long term as possible. Turkey was my secondary concern, and I really didn't care (or believe) they'd hold any hard power in North Africa for very long. The wider comintern collectively would, and will, as we empower and rebuild the post colonial states there, but I never thought an Ottoman style province from Atlantic to Egypt would work.
That's the other one where I was fine on giving it them for other negotiations, because I believed that whilst communism is super popular in the country (and they would stay in the comintern), they won't be staying under turkey for very long.
Yeah, I think now it's more a matter of north sea negotions because I've got the baltic locked down hard.
With the Indians, it's going to be a three way pull between the US, Japan and Russia, maybe Turkey if persia sticks with them and the Persian gulf gets super important.
It didn't need to cover everything. There were things neither Japan nor I cared about, and some things that were just 'meh' whether they supported it or not.
It was a very well orchestrated diplomatic offensive, with the key lubricant (if one may use such a term here) that of clearly identified mutual interests.
The communists in the SU became more and more into the minority in their partnership with other nations with a Finland still under Mannerheim, the hero of the war for independence and former zarist General, and a Denmark still with a King. Both are definitely more leaning to the US and Turkey.
Sorry to hear about your mother. My sincere condoleances. If you weren't halfway across the world, I'd offer to play some music at the funeral.
India was interesting as I had hoped to use Germany's vote there to wrangle just a little more support for an independent Germany, but of course it turned out pretty much everyone was already locked in on Germany by that point thanks to Kelebek's machinations...
As for the greater Turkish empire, I'd love to see it succeed, but I'm not holding my breath...
Honestly, if I could gaeuntee my super competent diplomats and statesmen would be running the show after the conference ended, Germany would have been an independent comintern member, because that makes a lot more sense long term with the view of eventually turning the entire comintern into a big socialist mega union or federation.
As is, I must assume that won't begin to happen until stalin dies, so I needed to put the USSR in the best possible place to ensure it was the premier superpower, and also had a ton of other socialist and communist parties, movements and peoples outside of Moscow. Fortunately, all of the really crazy ones are in the balkans and thus turkey's problem, but the german and Italian socialists are going to be very influential going forwards...
Interesting. Anyway, what diplomats in smoke filled room and with twisted arms decide is one thing, time, lesser people as successors and 'facts on the ground' can see things eventually turn out quite differently, of course.
Things like the big wartime leaders - with all their power and prestige - leaving the scene (whether by death or retirement), will have a very big impact, especially for the non-democratic Turkish and Soviet governments.
As some of you may have seen on one of my other threads, COVID has now added its unwanted presence to delay my plans to round this one off. It may not happen at once, but it will happen!
The longer you go without writing otherwise, the longer my uber internationalist SU gets to live and strengthen! The workers of the world will not be enslaved to the whims of Australian cricket!
Time remains suspended - but the bacteria in the petrie dish will start growing again soon. Who knows what they will develop into. Whatever it is, it's bound to be somewhat surprising and unpleasant.
Epilogue 1D - The Geneva Peace Conference Voting Round 8 and the Fate of India
We finally bring this review of the outcomes - and chance for any more 'tell all' diplomatic anecdotes - to the final round of voting and two of the bigger issues to be decided. Arguably, that on Germany being the biggest of all.
I've continued to highlight (by using italics) where a country voted against its most advantageous course in terms of bargaining points scored.
---xxx---
Round Eight: Germany and France
Despite all the prior agreements and voting, the big one - Proposition 23 on the future of Germany - was the closest of the lot. At first it appeared a tie had been achieved, until the UK put its hand up to remind the LN Secretariat that it had lost a vote for the veto it exercised in the previous round on India (although the actual outcome of that round would not be assessed until the conference ended). But in the end, Stalin's diplomatic plan and dealing prevailed, with Germany passing from temporary control as a puppet of Turkey to Soviet hegemony, narrowly avoiding partition.
Despite this diplomatic outcome in 1944, how events will transpire in the near and later future remain an interesting question. After all, the last attempt at such a settlement at the Versailles Conference didn't necessarily work out as the victors had hoped ...
The vote on France was more decisive and would begin the rebuilding of France as a major European power as even Turkey voted for the restoration of southern France, as cross-factional support generally united behind the reunification of the Fifth Republic. But French power had a very long way to go before it could be considered a great power again. While 'symbolic' German and Japanese votes in favour of its annexation or partition would send already bad relations with those two former Axis nations even lower than they had already been.
---xxx---
The Fate of India
The outcome of the British veto on Proposition 21.1 was determined after the Geneva Conference ended - by events on the ground in the sub-continent. (ie a die roll).
1-2 = minor civil disturbance, stays under UK control, UK -10 points then scored as Raj per 21.1 ;
3-4 = major uprising, India become a single independent Allied country, UK -5 points then scored per 21.2;
5-6 = catastrophic uprising, India is partitioned (per OTL) with both parts becoming fully independent and non-aligned, scored per 21.3 (ie the veto essentially has no effect).
In the end, after a major uprising ensued, a bitter Churchill was forced to relinquish his Victorian desire for a continuation of the Raj. He was lucky that India, while gain its independence, would remain within the Allied faction. It had also avoided partition for now, but the underlying divisions in the country, especially but not exclusively between the significant minority Muslim and and majority Hindu populations, would surely cause instability soon. Not to mention the political and diplomatic differences between British imperialism, Western capitalism and democracy, Japanese imperialism, Soviet-led Communism and possible Turkish Kemalist-Inonuist influence on the western border with Pakistan made a quiet time on the sub-continent a very unlikely proposition.
AuthAAR's Note: Next from me, once discussion is done and I summon the time and nervous energy, will be to tell my version of the post-war settlement and developments. How detailed that will be, what form it will take and how far forward I project things remains undecided in my own mind.
I have some broad ideas, but plan to make it fairly general, in keeping with the AAR's canon and certainly not past around say 1960-ish, leaving anything after that to purest speculation. But basically, I'll approach it organically and with an open mind and see where it takes me.
The vote on France was more decisive and would begin the rebuilding of France as a major European power... 'symbolic' German and Japanese votes in favour of its annexation or partition would send already bad relations with those two former Axis nations even lower than they had already been.
I know the British didn't vote this way, but I am sure that privately this Japanese vote to screw over France was a major boost to Anglo-British relations, as it should be.
Looking forward to the final writeup and at long last wrapping up this titanic work for the archives.
looking forward to the post-war story already! I'm hoping with the democratic loose framework the union of the states will not be broken in the future, and if it somehow gets broken the rulers at the time remember to move all industry of the areas that they have to leave closer to home
instead, we can be the beacon of the free world, the beacon of the ex colonies who just got or are in a struggle to get independent.
At first it appeared a tie had been achieved, until the UK put its hand up to remind the LN Secretariat that it had lost a vote for the veto it exercised in the previous round on India (although the actual outcome of that round would not be assessed until the conference ended).
Yes, I took view that the political and diplomatic damage resulting from attempting to cover up that uncomfortable fact would be far, far worse than owning up and taking it on the chin.
Not to mention the political and diplomatic differences between British imperialism, Western capitalism and democracy, Japanese imperialism, Soviet-led Communism and possible Turkish Kemalist-Inonuist influence on the western border with Pakistan made a quiet time on the sub-continent a very unlikely proposition.
Yes, I took view that the political and diplomatic damage resulting from attempting to cover up that uncomfortable fact would be far, far worse than owning up and taking it on the chin.
I was going to wait a day to see if anyone noticed. I admit I was worried that you would have let India go with no veto and taken the extra vote, which would have sunk Germany. But fortunately, you reckoned rightly that Churchill would have made a fight over it, and burnt the +1 you got from me.
A gamble. Probably the largest one of the entire post war game.
The UK has some work to do. Europe is not going to forgive them for abandoning them to the nazis. France and Netherlands will be difficult to win back over compared to Turkey and Russia who not only were war allies but will be running a huge charm offensive against the few remaining free countries in western Europe.
I guess they and the US are allies because they each have bugger all choice. And they'll still have some fights because they have to decide between them what happens to Greenland. Its obviously going to be occupied rather than stay with commie Denmark, but who will occupy it, and what happens after that? Indepednanfe, part of newfoundland or a US territory.
As for the comintern...out of everyone in the world, they have the hardest graft. The US were good war partners and are hands off in Europe and Asia. Japan is a current partner and friend, with the borders and sphere of influence in Asia to negotiate. But the UK is as close to the Comintern have to an enemy now. Did nothing during the war. Opposed us a ton during negotiations. Did not withdraw gracefully from India.
The UK itself will be alright but the wider empire is going to be torn away at the first opportunity (probably otl suez crises but much sooner).
As readAARs continue to digest and reflect on the Conference, here is the first instalment of the post-war story. It will start to illustrate the new post-war, post-conference set up in a few key area, so we start from a common revised understanding of where things now stand.
---XXX---
Europe in 1944
First we have a map of the 'New Europe' (including North Africa) which illustrates the outcomes of the Geneva Peace Conference of October-November 1944.
The Allies.France is re-united. The UK still retains Egypt, Palestine and Kuwait as directly ruled territories (for now, anyway). Iraq is a British puppet. Minor European Allied members (who were always free or were more recently liberated) include Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.
Neutrals. A few lucky countries managed to stay out of the conflict entirely, mirroring their OTL experience: Sweden, Portugal, Switzerland and Eire. A select band indeed. All would probably adhere, by instinct, to more Western values, but diplomatically their slate is clean and their path one filled with threats and opportunities.
Independent Comintern. This club is more exclusive than I thought it might have been before the Conference. Only Spain managed to cleave itself away from either of the two dominant Comintern sub-blocs, while the US (for now) is its own sub-bloc and a very uneasy member-of-convenience of the Comintern. How it comes through the frustrations and disappointments of the Geneva Conference and the imminent elections of 8 November 1944 Presidential elections will of course be one of the great issues of the immediate post-war period. This would include the fate of Iceland and Rhodes (both of which fell under US control during GW2 and remain there for now).
Bucharest Pact (UGNR). Turkey was of course one of the big winners of Great War Two and the resulting peace settlement. On paper, anyway: the political and military costs of maintaining their vast, new sprawling semi-federated sub-bloc remain unclear, as do the benefits that may flow. Inonu remains firmly in charge for now and maintains very friendly and brotherly relations with Stalin. How long those leaders rule and the fraternal feelings continue will be another of the great questions of the post-war world.
But for now, the Turkish hegemony contains three levels, if they can be described that way. There is Turkey itself, dominant within the UGNR. Then there are the component Glorious National Republics of the UGNR, stretching from Italy in the west across to Iran in the east, bordering India. As has been discussed before, the nationalist elements within those countries that have been denied even token independence as Bucharest Pact puppet states is likely to be a sore point in the future.
Even before the ink was dry on the 1944 Treaty of Geneva, Turkey ensured it had set up a political vehicle to bind its external satellite states together in common cause: Romania - its most important and autonomous wartime puppet - was rewarded for its contribution and placated for its failure to achieve Independent Comintern status by being made the titular and symbolic home of this new arrangement, known thereafter as the Bucharest Pact.
The puppet states derived from the Treaty of Geneva essentially created two groups of regional buffers. The first and most significant are the five states of central Europe, led by Romania and augmented by Hungary, Austria, Czechia and Slovakia. The other group is the recently released post-colonial group of newly independent North African states (provisional borders based largely on modern OTL maps): Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. These new puppet states will remain under provisional Turkish administration until their new borders, constitutions and diplomatic arrangements are confirmed, but they will remain Turkish puppets after the exercise of the veto in Geneva. How this denial of Independent Comintern status is absorbed by those new nations in coming years is yet another consequence of the contentious Treaty of Geneva outcomes.
Warsaw Pact (USSR). Of course the other big winner in Europe was the USSR. Turkey may have received more puppets and conquered land, especially Italy, but Stalin secured the massive prize of a unified (if reduced) German Democratic Republic as a Soviet puppet within its sub-bloc. The right-leaning pro-Turkish provisional government inherited from the brief Turkish occupation would no doubt soon be tossed aside for one more to Moscow's liking. Something similar would no doubt happen in their other major puppet Poland, whose loss of eastern territory to the Soviets during GW2 was compensated for by the agreed cessions of land in eastern Germany and Prussia (including the Turkish enclave). And so too Denmark and Finland.
Concurrently with the formation of the Bucharest Pact (and likely as a result of a mututal side-agreement between the two close wartime partners), Stalin initiated his own Warsaw Pact to bind these four new puppet states into a diplomatic and defensive grouping.
---XXX---
The League of Nations
Revived after the conclusion of the war and, due to Soviet, Turkish and US influence supplanting the briefly-held Allied construct of a new 'United Nations', the League of Nations would remain the pre-eminent international body for collective diplomacy. In accordance with the Treaty of Geneva and the peace agreement with Japan, the League of Nations Security Council (LNSC) was established with five Permanent Members: The USSR, UGNR, USA, UK and the Empire of Japan. They would have powers similar to those of the UNSC of OTL.
Naturally, some countries will be disappointed with this outcome 'stitched up' by the key belligerents of the recent war in Geneva. Chief among these would be the Chinese, though their lack of participation in the main phase of the war, its sharply divided political landscape and vehement opposition from Japan (which retained vast swathes of China as puppet states or occupied territory) had seen its exclusion from the P5. Germany had of course been the prime instigator of the war and was now a Soviet puppet, so there was no question of them being given P5 membership.
And France had ended the war weak, divided and reliant on the good will of others to regain its southern lands. But exclusion from this group would presumably both rankle them, but also - for now - make them diplomatically reliant on the UK as the sole Allied member of the P5, with its crucial veto power. But in turn yet another reason for mixed feelings of dependence and gratitude but also resentment to the the UK, their liberator and protector.
---XXX---
The US Election Campaign
Fought against the backdrop of the end of the war, the US lacklustre participation in it balanced by significant industrial contribution to the other main anti-Fascist belligerents, and the frustrations arising from the 'unfinished business' with Japan and disappointments, this coming election will be crucial.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Democrats. The ailing President Roosevelt will again represent the Democrats with a new Vice Presidential running mate, Harry Truman. Identified with being on the winning side of the war, but with little direct US fighting and gains and close identification with the communist-aligned Comintern give the incumbent an ambiguous legacy to take to the people. The party itself contains some diverse opinions within it. Some embraced a more left-leaning foreign and domestic policy, with economic reforms at home and a continued alignment with and membership of the Comintern abroad.
Another more 'centrist' faction feels the disappointment of the 'unfinished war' with Japan and the 'betrayal' of Geneva more keenly. They seek a re-alignment back to the West leading to the formation of a new Western Alliance, led by the US, UK and France, as the best vehicle for their future security. And also to a possible diplomatic - even possibly proxy military - campaign to reassert Western and US influence in the Asia-Pacific to wind back Japanese power.
Thomas E. Dewey
Republicans. The Republicans had selected Thomas Dewey and their candidate. Dewey campaigned against Roosevelt's New Deal and his close alignment with the 'Socialist Evil' of the Comintern, especially the Soviet Union. He wanted smaller government and bigger business. He also railed against the 'failure and fiasco' of the Geneva Conference outcome and hinted at a refusal to ratify the Treaty of Geneva if he came to power, though made no explicit promise in this regard.
Dewey was of the more moderate wing of the party, his vice presidential running mate John Bricker representing the conservative wing. Dewey also hankered for an eventual revisiting of the settlement with Japan and advocated a policy of increased defence spending and the confrontation of Japan diplomatically, including its isolation if possible. He was a firm proponent of remaining in the League of Nations, and of quickly detaching the US from the Comintern and re-engaging with the UK and other Allies. He wanted the US to become the key leader of a future Western Alliance. He also advocated for closer ties with the UGNR, hoping to woo the Turks away from the Comintern, at least to form a balancing bloc to the 'real Communists' of the Warsaw Pact.
Bricker's conservative wing argued for a more isolationist , America-first approach. They argued for an independent US policy aligned to no other faction or grouping than their own. Fiercely anti-communist, they would oppose the Soviets and their 'fellow travellers' on principle, but not to the compromise of what they viewed as core US national and economic interests. They wanted to repudiate the Treaty of Geneva, but retain the US's position on the P5 of the LNSC, seeing it in practical terms as a bulwark against any of the foreign powers, be they Communist, Fascist, Kemalist-Inonuist or Allied! They wanted a strong US military, but not one necessarily designed for large scale military adventurism, for example against Japan. Their interests lay closer to home: the defence of the US itself and its off-shore territories and regional hegemony in the Americas.
---XXX---
So whichever side wins the election, their margin (and thus perceived strength of mandate) and the balance of internal views on foreign policy will make both immediate and mid-term US international and military policy hard to predict. The next chapter will deal with the outcome of the US Elections, as well as a map covering the post-Geneva situation in Asia.
I'm going to get a little funky here and devise a RNG determined model for this US election. It will determine who wins, and for each side what the prevailing majority foreign policy views of the Congressional wings (as opposed to the Administration leaders) might be. Not too complicated, but I thought it might be a bit of fun. That will help govern US foreign policy over the first four years of the post-war period.
Disclaimer: any resemblance to OTL current (or past) politics in the US is completely coincidental. This is a work of alt-historical fiction!
Presumably Iceland is to become an allied indepednant European nation, with some US bases.
Rhodes though...forgot the US had that. Probably a US territory for now and air and naval base to pressure the black sea with. Can always be dangled over turkey's head both as a carrot and stick too.
Interesting table. China may get membership eventually if they do unite and become indepdant...maybe taking japan's seat. Otherwise, I don't see much chanhe happening to that setup. Certainly France is quite diminished from OTL.
...
FDR is going to struggle to get 4 terms. He was in the middle of a popular war against Japan and winning both against them and the nazis. In peacetime, he's still genuinely popular, esepcially for getting a 'win' with little to no amercian bloodshed at all...but at a price. Amercia is quite isolated from the world still, and it would be easy for the isolationists to press their case and go back to being true neutrals in fortress amercia.
This would suit the USSR just fine. But FDR sticking around for another year before Truman inheriting the seat would be fine too. Both have a good working relationship with Stalin and such calm would no doubt be helpful in internal comintern negotiations and those coming up with Japan.
