“The Crown Atomic”: A Kaiserreich Cold War AAR (Canada and Entente)

[JodelDiplom]

Because nothing was said.

No news is good news.

It wasn't under Mittelafrikan/Goering's administration so it was just a "typical colony" as opposed to Goering's hell hole.

You don't hear much about them in our world either, yet it's a poor country with lots of civil strife and no future

 

[Maximus101]

You don't hear much about them in our world either, yet it's a poor country with lots of civil strife and no future

I can't response without talking about current politics, but it's hardly the worst in everything.

Besides my point wasn't "Madagascar is a utopia," I said it was the most stable former German African colony. Which isn't a hard hurdle to meet. Besides being separated from Goering's issues both administratively and physically it isn't some bloody country with vicious leaders and at the intercept of different powers. It was an island managed by Germany proper, which even under the DKP wasn't too fond of Goering's methods. Likely more of its population had access to secondary education without Goering in the way. It being under uncontested German control (neither the French, Angloes, Syndies, or Japan seemed interested.) it probably is still poor but is just under the thumb of German interests. While not great, at least it avoided a pointless bloodbath.

Again "most stable former German African colony" does not equal "glorious and dynamic economy ready to take on the world. " It just means not a former colony run by self enriching Totalists, beleaguered governments, or white nationalists who think their brutal methods was 'civilizing.'

On that last note, I will say this. Goering and the Mittelafrikans claimed they were there to civilize the continent. Given how brutal it is there, I would say Goering did succeed in teaching about him way of civilizing.

 

[GhostRider124]

I was wondering if the states that seceded from the Christian Republic of America (CRA) will form their own confederation like the former Soviet Republics in TTL formed the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in 1993 as a successor to the Soviet Union?

 

[Quaehaer]

I was wondering if the states that seceded from the Christian Republic of America (CRA) will form their own confederation like the former Soviet Republics in TTL formed the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in 1993 as a successor to the Soviet Union?

I think they ones with good relations kind of already are, with the Anglosphere itself. Depending on the definitions of “Successor State”, the nations that could be included as successors to the AUS are; the Pacific States of America, the Federal Republic of the Midwest (Omaha Republic), “Greater Texas”, the Christian Republic of America, and the United American Republic

The Pacific States and Omaha Republic are obviously already in the Anglosphere together. Its really doubtful that the CRA and UAR have any positive relations with each other. Actually, depending on what “normal diplomatic relations” tangibly means, its possible they might still technically even still be at war with each other. Given what we know about how their relationship with each other progresses

As expected, fixing the final border between the two powers proved the trickiest issue in the negotiations and peace talks stalled. The Philadelphia government, in violation of the international ceasefire, refused to withdraw its troops from 5,000 square miles of disputed border territory unless the CRA recognized its full sovereignty and equal status as legal successor to the old AUS. In response, the CRA maintained its naval blockade of Secularist ports, although the effects of this were mitigated by the NAO providing the Philadelphia regime access to its harbors. The CRA also refused to release 120,000 Secularist prisoners of war. In the end, the international negotiators were forced to accept a state of ‘permanent truce’ as the most that could be achieved in the Havana Negotiations. Piecemeal negotiations would continue between the CRA and its northern neighbor the next twenty years, cycling through cold peace, renewed thaw, and periods of low-level conflict. The last prisoners of war were exchanged in 1984, more than fifteen years after the end of the conflict, and the two sides finally normalized their border and diplomatic relations at the Annapolis Accords of 1992.

Secularist prisoners of war line up for release, c.1970. The last prisoners of war were exchanged in 1984, more than fifteen years after the end of the conflict​

We also know the CRA has a negative diplomatic relation with all of the other American republics and Anglosphere members. Since they were closed off to foreign engagement for more than a decade until after 1979, and even afterwards they are seen unfavorably across the world. However, the information about the conditions and suppression in the CRA is talking in past tense. So, it is possible that by the “present”, conditions have somewhat relaxed and loosed.

There also is a possible interesting circumstance depending on how the BLA peace settlement actually went forward. Since Malcolm X is the leader of the army, its totally possible that like OTL he was more aligned towards the Black Separatist movement (there was also the opener in the 1960 update that hinted at the BLA). We obvious do know that there is no actually independent black state. But it is possible that the settlement involved an autonomous area, where there are at least black only/large majority sections, or Northern Ireland style type separate, "free", self-sufficient, self-managed neighborhoods. On on hand the solution is obviously absolutely horrific, as it segregation turned up to the extreme and essentially ethnic cleansing. On the other, a self governing area and community is probably one the the most reliable ways for the black population in the CRA to be safe from whatever nightmare the CRA would do completely unrestrained if it had free reign. If there is some sort of Black Autonomous self-governing entity that is within the CRA, it would definitely be notable to see what is the larger relationship it would have with the Anglosphere (and even the rest of the world diplomatically). We know the Entente provided support to the Black uprising groups and the BLA. It seems that they would obviously be inclined to communicate and attempt to form some type of a relationship with such a body. It would provide an opportunity for a liberal political entity within the CRA, without waiting for the clearly slow process it would take for the CRA to internally reform as in itself.

At the same time, the regime faced a growing threat from black nationalist movements, with Malcolm Little’s BLA launching several successful attacks throughout the Deep South and galvanizing African-American resistance to the regime.

Black Liberation Army militants, c.1966. Coughlin's regime faced a growing threat from black nationalist movements.

- - - - -
​

At the same time, in the Deep South, Coughlin’s focus on the war against the Secularists had allowed the African American insurgency to metastasize into a major military threat, capable of seizing and holding territory with stolen CRA heavy equipment. The BLA had succeeded in capturing Shreveport, Louisiana in May 1967, establishing it as a capital of sorts for a breakaway black republic. Unthinkably, the BLA now threatened Huey Long’s hometown New Orleans, the great America First reliquary. Inflamed by two hundred years of inter-community tensions and resentments, the insurgency in the South was bloody and unrelenting, with neither side giving any quarter. Fleeing the terror, tens of thousands of refugees poured into surrounding states and neighboring Texas, straining local resources and inhibiting the military response. The insurgency, which would continue until 1988, caused significant hardships for the population, environment and the economy of the region, with an estimated 60,000–80,000 people killed before its end.

An African-American mother and child pass CRA militiamen in Louisiana during a gun battle, c.1970. The BLA insurgency would continue until 1988 and kill tens of thousands.​

In the years after the ceasefire, Coughlin’s regime turned inward, convinced of the hostility of the international system, and focused on restoring and rationalizing its economy. Following Coughlin’s death in 1979, his successor as Supreme Pastor, Wallie A. Criswell, oversaw a reform process that de-emphasized some of the more impractical and internationally unpopular aspects of Coughlin’s ideology, lauched a peace process which led to the end of the BLA insurgency in 1988, and began re-opening to foreign engagement. Nonetheless, the harsh suppression of internal dissent continued, and the CRA remained a bête noire for international human rights groups.

Inaugural Omaha Republic President Adlai Stevenson died shortly after the end of the war. He became an iconic figure for a new generation of democrats and reformers.​

So, aside from that outlet, that only leaves any potential relationship between the American republics as being between Texas, the UAR, and the Anglosphere. The Anglosphere is officially an alliance that is composed of “English-speaking democracies”. We know that by the “present”, the bloc is considered to be mainly isolationist. Which then indicates that they most likely did not obtain any new members, since its original creation as a reformation from members of the NAO-Imperial-Entente. So, if the bloc will ever grow and include new members, it would be either one of those two. (I guess they could technically include some Indian, and maybe even some African nations. But given the issues with India historically in the first place, that really feels extremely unlikely lamo. Those nations also probably don’t manage to fit the “democratic” requirement, for now anyways. So, if that were ever to happen, it would be in the far future, even relative to the “present”).

Texas feels like it would be the most likely, since it is already a liberal democracy. It also had pre-existing relations with the former NAO/Entente that were at least somewhat positive. I would guess that as a result of those earlier connections, there probably does exist some sort of links between the Anglosphere and Texas. Texas does have a history of neutrality for here though, since for a period over twenty years (between 1945 – 1969) it was in a situation where it was required to be “neutral”. Given the context, it seems as if it used this as an opportunity to form links between many blocs, which has allowed it to form both diplomatic and economic to powers like Germany/Mittleuropa. That probably created an incentive economically for Texas to stay, at least officially, outside of the alliance. It also feels like the period of enforced neutrality and only “technical” existence has led to a resentment from Texas. For a long time, they weren’t seen diplomatically as an actual, “real” nation. Which then most possibly lead culturally to a situation where they place more of a priority on their independence and sovereignty, and want to show they aren’t still at a inferior status compared to any other nation. These reasons are probably why, while Texas most likely has the Anglosphere as it natural closest partners, it isn’t now a part of the bloc. Although it seems probably as time passes on, it will drift in that direction. And its very possible it will eventually join and become a member.

Meanwhile, a separate but closely related conflict was unfolding in the Republic of Texas, or ‘Neutral Texas’ as it was internationally known. Texan neutrality, negotiated at the Treaty of Sonoma following Texas’ occupation by Mexico during the Second Civil War, had always been a contentious and fragile concept within Texas itself. Although Texan neutrality secured the country’s independence, many Texans saw their neutered international status as beneath their country’s dignity.

Official flag of the Republic of Texas (1945-1969). A Texan state flag defaced with three grey bands, the 'neutral flag' was so widely disliked in Texas that it was almost never seen, flown only by ships at sea.
​

​

​

Texas, undeniably emerging from the war stronger than it started, succeeded in securing international recognition for its full sovereignty, aided by considerable German diplomatic support and careful hand-holding of Mexico. Moreover, LBJ walked away with ‘Texlahomla’ and Kansas, largely because his armies were the only credible power in the chaotic bandit country regions. In a fiery speech back in Austin, Johnson celebrated the independence and inalienable sovereignty of ‘Greater Texas’.

The flag of Greater Texas (1968 - ). LBJ walked away with ‘Texlahomla’ and Kansas because his armies were the only credible power in the chaotic region.​

The UAR is in a different situation, where it still isn’t yet a democracy. The information given, where it named the military junta as being in real control, was in past tense. Which means that its possible that as time went on, and Waters passed, the civilian administration eventually slowly regained oversight of the military like properly originally intended. But even if by the present there is full civilian control, like the old AUS, that is in itself undemocratic. Since the nation is most likely still using the old AUS framework for the civilian government (the government did still call itself the AUS until the time after the American Wars ended, and the constitution created was described as being “democratic-populist”, like the AUS). That system was obviously still undemocratic, since it was created by Huey to keep himself and his supporters permanently in control, create a more indirect sort of democracy, make it more difficult to change representation for the voter, and of course be a one-party state. I also don’t think its unintentional that both the CRA and UAR were given leaders that would bring them to the “present”, given if both remained as authoritarian systems with leaders for life. They’d already be most likely to probably remain as so anyways.

The wars also had profound geopolitical effects. In North America, the Wars represented the end of mainstream pan-Americanist ideology. All of the new American states emerged with distinct, battle-forged identities, and hopes of restoring the old USA were relegated to the political fringe, where they largely remained through the political and constitutional upheavals of the next two decades. After the war, the Philadelphia government – which theoretically still called itself the American Union State – reformed itself as the United American Republic (UAR). Claiming continuity from both Huey Long’s American Union State and the old United States of America, the UAR instituted a democratic-populist constitution, institutionalizing separation of church and state and other civil liberties, and renewed civilian ‘oversight’ of the military. In practice, the UAR continued to be challenged by regionalist tensions. As a result, the junta remained firmly in control, and President General John K. Waters remained the country’s de facto dictator until his death in 1989.

Flag of the United American Republic. The re-labelled Philadelphia junta claimed continuity from both Huey Long’s American Union State and the old United States of America.​

Also, if the UAR does have the old AUS political system, Peterson will be in a position where its simple for him to become a President for life, as Long was. The same person he “represents” lived until 2011 in OTL, so as time goes on, he would probably likely become more of an institution. Presumptively he is a symbol of the civilian control, meaning that unlike with Huey, his power and influence will probably grow as time goes on. As he is always a steadfast and stable representation of civilian leadership, that will still remain in place if the junta influence start to weaken. Potentially the longer time passes, the longer Peterson is in charge, the more real influence that Peterson starts to actually then have, which allows more influence for the civilian government then in general to have, which can build more upon itself and allow that more reform. And though this is definitely a separate process from democratization, and links to the Anglosphere, issues like this do tend to sometimes begin to be linked politically in the cultural mindset.

If I had to guess, the “official” Presidents of the AUS successor states are something like

American Union State

Huey Long (1937 – 1961)

Charles Coughlin (1961 – 1962)

Christian Republic of America

Supreme Pastor

Charles Coughlin (1962 – 1979)

Wallie A. Criswell (1979 – 2002)

President

Lester Garfield Maddox Sr. (1962 – 1966)

David Turner Green (1966 -????)

United American Republic

President

Russell W. Peterson (1963 – 2011)

President General (the title possibly not official)

John K. Waters (1962 – 1989)

Mixed Junta Control, gradually reforming to civilian control, as well as separate reforms for possibly more democracy, as well as more relations to the Anglosphere.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

So even if the UAR has reverted to full civilian control like the AUS, it would still be undemocratic. There are definitely still connections between the Anglosphere and the UAR, as we know they allowed the republic to use their ports while being blockaded by the CRA. I would guess that initially while establishing itself the UAR was more independent and isolationist, like the CRA was. Then as time went on, I would guess that transfer to civilian control and political reform to increase democratization became linked to further relations with the Anglosphere.

With the Anglosphere most likely acting sort of like OTL US does when it acted to encourage reforms in nations like South Korea or Myanmar to liberalize and “democratize”. (Also, I could have sworn there was actual mention of more return to civilian control and closer ties to the Anglosphere in the chapter, as time went on. But it seems like its not there, as its been edited out, so who knows how much those deleted scenes actually count for lol) . The UAR culturally exists sort of based on the legacy of the continuation of a secular AUS, as "Huey’s vision". Which does create a cultural issue to place a slow down on the pace of reforms. Which is why the UAR most like still continuing on as some type of authoritarian in the “present”. There is also a large cultural difference between the UAR and Anglosphere perspective on the AUS, Long, and all of the more recent American history. Being on originally from different sides of the “Cold War” between the NAO and AUS, and having entirely different origins and governments, probably creates a drastic gap in the mindset between the UAR and the rest of the American Republics. Their very different mentality towards their history will probably impede reform. But as time goes on the past naturally loses its importance. And if the UAR does ever become actually democratic, these differences probably have a limit in their relevance.

Concealed by friends and allies in the north, he became a leading figure in the regionalist-nationalist movement seeking to restore northern autonomy. Following Hamlett’s failed coup, the remaining secularist elements in the military evacuated northwards, and Waters and a cabal of like-minded officers seized their chance to declare themselves the new and rightful AUS government.

Flag of the Philadelphia government. Some confusion surrounds the naming of Waters' government, as it initially continued to call itself the American Union State. To differentiate, historical sources often use the terms Secularist junta, Secularist government, or Philadelphia government.​

Setting up its capital in Philadelphia, Waters’ new government continued to call itself the American Union State (in contrast to Coughlin’s newly declared Christian Republic of America) and presented itself as the rightful heir to Long’s legacy. It maintained some of the appearance of the old regime, assembling and seating a new, corporatist Congress and appointing Russel W. Peterson of Delaware as its president. However, true power lay with Waters and the other officers of the junta. They promoted regionalist-nationalist policies and had a primary goal of establishing their own independence rather than seizing control in the South. The new secularist government turned back Coughlin’s neo-segregationist policies, adopted a new flag and coat of arms, and banned the remains of America First and all other political organizations. It swiftly and harshly liquidated not only Coughlin's northern fundamentalist allies, but also the so-called 'New Left', a loose collection of post-Syndicalist democrats and socialists which had also been gathering support in the region as Long and his regime decayed.

Again, probably as time passes on, it will drift in a more democratic direction. Which is probably to some degree a linked issue to Anglosphere connections and influence. Which means it is also very possible it will eventually reform to liberalize, then later join, and then also ultimately be a democratic member. (As for the relations between Texas and the UAR, I would think that they would be perfectly cordial. There isn't any real reason I'd see for it not to be between the two. But since they don’t even have a land border, it is difficult for them to go too much actually further, even if for some reason they did want to)

I could definitely see a situation where in the far future from the “present”, the Empire, then the total Anglosphere, including Texas and the UAR (and in the absolutely very much longer future, even the CRA and maybe even Mexico?); as time passes continue to increase their links and connections. Until they eventually might even join together in a federalized supra-state. (That all would be in the far future, though, like over the late 21st, 22nd, 23rd centuries). Like the situation in OTL with the EU, African Union, and arguably even NAFTA, today.

As for other potential CIS like entities (an organization that brings the associated nations closer than solely being unrelated, but also isn’t a “real” EU like bloc or alliance), the possible circumstance I could potentially see are:

- Imperial France and West Africa. This is the clearest parallel with a power losing it former directly controlled territories. Though it feels pretty unlikely, since unlike OTL, West Africa for here, had to fight and revolution and uprising for to independence. Relations with France and its former colonies are probably decently harsher and more negative. This later probably means there won’t be an OTL “Francophonie” type institution, in this situation.

These nations easily could still have connections to France, that will grow as time goes on. Since OTL has shown that increased time from independence commonly produces circumstances where the cultural links surpasses and exceeds most brutal and resentful colonial legacies. So potentially an organization like this could eventually form. Although an increasingly global economy will make these connections less important ahead. But as for the “present”, relations are probably still too hostile and resentful between the groups for anything too “official”

- Its unlikely, but a liberalized reformed Mittleuropa could conceivably lead to this. It feels extremely unlikely though, as its completely much more likely it develops a more EU-NATO like alliance organization. In the same form kind of as the Anglosphere

- Another option that is also very unlikely. The Japanese Empire deradicalizing could eventually lead to this if it were to go far enough. Given that it seems to still directly control Transamur in the 1994 map though, it mostly likely did not go to that scope and intensity. Making it so that most likely even in to the “present”, the Empire carries and maintains its authoritarianism and autocracy.

​

- I would guess that this is the most likely option of the potential situations. The Meditente could form into something like this after France lost control of the West African colonies. There are many potential transformations, and so easily could go in multiple different ways. But absolutely, one is that France remains technically the “leader” of the bloc allies, while materially all of the nations involved in the bloc act as more separate. Even if they are considerably partially directed, economically and diplomatically, by France. The bloc possibly could continue to manage substantial influence and to shape the nations, but the members are essentially sovereign and broadly sustain separately.

 

[GhostRider124]

That was an amazing post @Quaehaer. Wow. This is why I love AAR’s and Reddit because the way you can bounce ideas off of other fans is amazing.

I am wondering if your ideas of a possible settlement between the BLA and the CRA that

the settlement involved an autonomous area, where there are at least black only/large majority sections, or Northern Ireland style type separate, "free", self-sufficient, self-managed neighborhoods.

were modeled after the Bantustans (black homelands) of South African Apartheid?

I love the idea of the Anglosphere uniting into a single super-state and go to the stars. Part of me hopes @cookfl will make a Stellaris AAR based on this.

I could definitely see a situation where in the far future from the “present”, the Empire, then the total Anglosphere, including Texas and the UAR (and in the absolutely very much longer future, even the CRA and maybe even Mexico?); as time passes continue to increase their links and connections. Until they eventually might even join together in a federalized supra-state. (That all would be in the far future, though, like over the late 21st, 22nd, 23rd centuries). Like the situation in OTL with the EU, African Union, and arguably even NAFTA, today.

Also who is the latest CRA President David Turner Green? I can't find him online the only name that comes up is David Green.

 

[Quaehaer]

That was an amazing post @Quaehaer. Wow. This is why I love AAR’s and Reddit because the way you can bounce ideas off of other fans is amazing.

I am wondering if your ideas of a possible settlement between the BLA and the CRA that were modeled after the Bantustans (black homelands) of South African Apartheid?

Yeah, I think that if you were talking about just the simple shape and framework, you could possibly make the comparison in the structure with South Africa. Simply in the aspect though. In just of what an autonomous Black National body form might look like. Although, I don’t think the comparison could internally really work going more past that.

At least to my understanding there, with the Bantustans, it was an active idea coming onward from the South African apartheid government. Where after WW2, they saw that Lesotho and Swaziland were original homelands of Native tribes that had been separate British colonies, and would obtain a separate independence in decolonization. The leaders of the National Party saw this occur, and essentially thought “if the British did it, why can’t we as well”. So, of course completely without any consultation from the actual Native population, they resolved to turn the already existing Native land into 20 separates different “Native tribal countries”. They coerced willing tribal chiefs to support the idea, further establishing a small elite class of black allies who profited from the government, as they got to rule their states basically as fiefdoms.

In the NP government minds, this would eventually lead to a peaceful separation of the groups into a white South Africa, and 20 other different tribal independent countries. Of course, this didn’t actually function like that. Since, even though the Bantustans did have some of the best agricultural land in the nation, they never got to the point where they were self-sustainable. They relied on the funding of South Africa for all essential operations. And so, they never were then granted any actual real independent rights. So then unsurprisingly, the South African government didn’t invest very many into these places. And even with the few circumstances when they did, they still never achieved a quality of life compatible to the "white nation of South Africa". Places like Pretoria invested a decent amount into their Bantu fiefdom lands, but they could only do so much. As overall, they were still run by a chief like elite class, that was both corrupt, and lack any actual sound coherent economic policy. And that’s not even mentioning that most ‘homelands’ were both small and disjointed. This would have made establishing them as truly independent difficult anyways, even done in the best of circumstances. Which meant the Bantustans still depended on either substance farming, remittances from “foreign workers” in South Africa, and from white South African “foreign” investment. (Also, as the Tomlinson Commission specifically noted; with its 10:1 black and white population ratio, any white South Africa was always going to need the Bantustans as a labor pool. So, this was a situation where even if it were possible to adequately define races and cordon them, which it truly would not be, the purpose still after could not be accomplished. Since the natural forces of the economic industry and sociology, makes the foundational idea of reaching a real “separate development” intrinsically unreachable)

The homelands nations become impoverished, and unsurprisingly then, people moved to where there was actual economic opportunity. And then there, obviously the native population protested both the segregation and the entire Bantustan concept. Which obviously lead to rough crackdowns from the Apartheid government. The international community saw what was going on and that the native population didn’t actually want independence, and refused to recognize them as actual nations. And of course, Apartheid development became more strained as its end goal proved to be overall unobtainable.

So, this meant that SA actively wanted everyone else to recognize the Bantustans as proper independent states, since it would legitimize their idea. With the CRA and the BLA, the government has instead been fighting for decades, trying to push down the insurgency. As well, like stated before, if Malcolm X is the person still in charge generally of the movement, or at least his influence still remains; then demands and settlements would possibly be the BLA pushing for autonomy and the creation of a Black political body. With the international situation with the CRA, it feels more like the international community, and especially the Anglosphere, would have absolutely not problem with recognizing a Black state if the CRA wanted to allow one lol.

The circumstance seems more like Northern Ireland and the Troubles, or even the Kurdish autonomy movement in Iraq, and Turkey. The circumstance would be obviously based on the type of leadership in charge. But we absolutely know for a fact that if Malcolm is still in charge, he would never allow anything close to the Bantustans to form. He would literally walk out in a millisecond if the government is actually friendly to the CRA in any way lamo. Malcolm would probably not allow any deal that was designed to make the state-entity unsustainable, either intentionally or not, either. He was the type of person who could easily see when anyone tried to have some political motive, and just refused to work with it. So even if the CRA wanted to subvert the deal to hinder the state, the deal probably would not be accepted without some assurances of funding sustainability and an actually workable base (so no untenable small and patchwork-states like the majority of the Bantus. But an actually achievable governable and manageable polity, like basically only the Transkei Bantu was). And even with that sort of idea, if the CRA didn’t want to invest in helping with the entity, then like with before; it seems that the international community and particularly the Anglosphere would be perfectly willing to help lol. So, it feels like they would be willing to help bolster the body, and possibly even block some foreign investment and relief. Basically, in order to assert that the CRA still has ostensive sovereignty over the area and the autonomous-entity. (also, the South’s economy is greatly bolstered by black labor. Especially now that it is a separate independent state. Its obviously not as extremely like with South Africa. And an ideolog, like Coughlin was, would place his ideas ahead of the potential economic benefit. But depending on how moderate Criswell is, he could broadly see the economic purpose in having access to black labor)

So, it might be an entity possibly like South Africa’s Bantustans in form (but again, probably not in the shape of their territory lol). But in policy and diplomacy, more like the spirit of the Northern Irish Good Friday Agreement cross-community voting, power sharing, Consociationalism, or with Lebanon's Civil War resulting Confessionalism (when it comes to the division of ethic groups into communities and blocs, not the actual power-sharing. Since I sort of doubt either Malcolm X or the rest of CRA want to actually truly work in the same framework anywhere lamo), blended with the Peace Lines

I love the idea of the Anglosphere uniting into a single super-state and go to the stars. Part of me hopes @cookfl will make a Stellaris AAR based on this.

Imaging a Stellaris setup is pretty fun. It seems like the Jerusalem Organization is starting to emerge as a group eventually like the UN for OTL. We continue to see international connections, especially there, going further and more extensive. It’s the sort of a natural result of the economic and political realities in more modern societies. So, it seems like they’d possibly act together with something like a J.I.O (Jerusalem International Organization), to represent the actions of all global communities like the Anglosphere and Mittleuropa, like the UN does for powers like the US and EU for OTL.

Also who is the latest CRA President David Turner Green? I can't find him online the only name that comes up is David Green.

For David Turner Green, yeah, as totally hilarious as it is to imagine the founder of Hobby Lobby as being at least partially in charge of the CRA, its probably not actually meant to be him lamo (Especially since he’d be probably too young at 25 at the time). I think he’s not supposed to ‘represent’ any particular figure from OTL. That’s why I put his dates as unknown question marks (????). There’s been a few people like that. Like with Ireland and Donovan Doyle, the second Taoiseach, who was the one who was the first after Michael Collins. As far as I can tell he is not “representing” any real person either. It makes complete sense, as different circumstances mean different people come.

Really; “realistically”, any born after POD, in this case 1917, should be butterflied out. And it should be only these later on non "real” people. Because even going back in time for a for a millisecond would then changes the air flow in that particular area, which would after this spread and eventually totally change the weather across the entire world, which means different gametes get produced and fertilized in the eggs, which means different people. So, any time travel that can change the past should always result in an entirely different set of new people. But I don’t mind when stories use real people like here, where its mostly used to tell what each particular figure represent, without having to simply describe it to the audience. So, the audience reads “Pierre Trudeau” and knows from OTL that political figure is “supposed” to be “Socialist-Adjacent Great Reformer, considered Father of Modern nation”. Or “the Beatles”, and we know that means “cultural shift in music”. Instead of just a made-up person or made up band name. Whereas otherwise we wouldn’t know without it telling us directly (or we would still figure it out, but not without some aspect of confusions. Its efficient for more depictions.

 

[Rifal]

Göringia wins the award for "shittiest named country" ever. So what colossal fuckwits are actually in charge of the Freistaats? Considering they are clearly authoritarian in nature it would be a small thing for them to abolish segregation and thus open up to trade and foreign aid again. Maybe not so tempting to tin pot dictators but its gotta be better than the alternative of ruling the post Mittleafrika clusterfuck, right?

 

[JodelDiplom]

Göringia wins the award for "shittiest named country" ever. So what colossal fuckwits are actually in charge of the Freistaats? Considering they are clearly authoritarian in nature it would be a small thing for them to abolish segregation and thus open up to trade and foreign aid again. Maybe not so tempting to tin pot dictators but its gotta be better than the alternative of ruling the post Mittleafrika clusterfuck, right?

Göringia actually seems to have some decently for itself. It's ruled by a white minority who seem to have successfully salvaged a huge chunk of former Mittelafrika for themselves. It was mentioned that their northeastern border was the result of them pushing a military offensive successfully into a black ruled country in what we know as Kenya, until the Ethiopians (likely with Japanese support) stopped them. Göringia's neighbours are all small states that are called kingdoms, so presumably the Göringian military had a large role in setting these places up as buffer zones against the syndicalist movements that established independent black ruled nations in the Congo basin and elsewhere. "kingdoms" likely that the buffer states are poor, backwards hellholes ruled despotically by upjumped tribal chiefs beholden to Göringian military and economic support.

Basically it's a more successful but also much more fragile version of OTL south Africa. Militarily strong, politically dominant in its not so small backyard, but economically stagnant due to trade sanctions by parts of the world and the immense cost of maintaining its military and defending its political position. If the buffer states are "lost" to black rebellion then insurgency and terrorism will creep into Göringia proper and wreck their economy district by district, triggering white flight from the nation, until it's too late to manage a peaceful transition of power to moderate black politicians. If that happens I imagine it's going to end like Rhodesia rather than like South Africa.

BTW "Rhodesia" was also a crap name for a country

 

[Rifal]

Göringia actually seems to have some decently for itself. It's ruled by a white minority who seem to have successfully salvaged a huge chunk of former Mittelafrika for themselves. It was mentioned that their northeastern border was the result of them pushing a military offensive successfully into a black ruled country in what we know as Kenya, until the Ethiopians (likely with Japanese support) stopped them. Göringia's neighbours are all small states that are called kingdoms, so presumably the Göringian military had a large role in setting these places up as buffer zones against the syndicalist movements that established independent black ruled nations in the Congo basin and elsewhere. "kingdoms" likely that the buffer states are poor, backwards hellholes ruled despotically by upjumped tribal chiefs beholden to Göringian military and economic support.

Basically it's a more successful but also much more fragile version of OTL south Africa. Militarily strong, politically dominant in its not so small backyard, but economically stagnant due to trade sanctions by parts of the world and the immense cost of maintaining its military and defending its political position. If the buffer states are "lost" to black rebellion then insurgency and terrorism will creep into Göringia proper and wreck their economy district by district, triggering white flight from the nation, until it's too late to manage a peaceful transition of power to moderate black politicians. If that happens I imagine it's going to end like Rhodesia rather than like South Africa.

BTW "Rhodesia" was also a crap name for a country

Considering the map was from 1994 we are looking at a "Göringian bush war" in the early 2000s-ish. Wonder if Germany will have shed its left-SPD government by then and resume support for Göringia? Would a DNVP, DKP or Zentrum government have the stomach for that? If so it could probably preserve a White ruled Göringia. Such a Göringia would probably face some form of long running low intensity insurgency from this Worlds equivalent of the ZANU but might with German support be able to end such a war on more favourable terms than OTL Rhodesia did.

 

[J_Master]

It would all kind of depend on the demographic situation of Göringia. Looking at the maps, the CASS was active on her soil, so it wouldn't be unfair to say that there were multiple atrocities and possible genocides on her territory aimed against blacks. Also considering that it is only one of two remaining states where whites can live peacefully on the continent (all the rest are either a Mugabe esque state or far worse in the red states of the Congo basin) all whites will have retreated to Südwest or Göringia. Now, there is a reason these areas were maintained and that's because they were the areas with the largest German settlement, so the influx might not be too massive, although we're still talking about half a continent. So, I would guess that both states might have 10 to up to 15% of their population as white. And, this might more important, whilst they see the black population as important to the economy, they will also consider their situation. The west have abandoned them and a fellow "settler culture" (in what manner you can consider the Afrikaners this is highly debatable) and they have lost half a continent. We're also not talking about a Rhodesia here. There, majority rule was a part of the plan, but they saw the blacks as not ready yet and wanted terrorists like Mugabe banned from elections. The whites of Südwest and Göringia would, in my eyes, adopt a policy of promoting white births and suppress black births. But Südwest and Göringia could easily hold on with whatever small amount of weapons, ammo and fuel get their way. Südwest has it easier in that regard. The regime is stable and the last thing South Africa wants is another unstable state on her border bringing more migrants her way.

 

[JodelDiplom]

It would all kind of depend on the demographic situation of Göringia. Looking at the maps, the CASS was active on her soil, so it wouldn't be unfair to say that there were multiple atrocities and possible genocides on her territory aimed against blacks. Also considering that it is only one of two remaining states where whites can live peacefully on the continent (all the rest are either a Mugabe esque state or far worse in the red states of the Congo basin) all whites will have retreated to Südwest or Göringia. Now, there is a reason these areas were maintained and that's because they were the areas with the largest German settlement, so the influx might not be too massive, although we're still talking about half a continent. So, I would guess that both states might have 10 to up to 15% of their population as white. And, this might more important, whilst they see the black population as important to the economy, they will also consider their situation. The west have abandoned them and a fellow "settler culture" (in what manner you can consider the Afrikaners this is highly debatable) and they have lost half a continent. We're also not talking about a Rhodesia here. There, majority rule was a part of the plan, but they saw the blacks as not ready yet and wanted terrorists like Mugabe banned from elections. The whites of Südwest and Göringia would, in my eyes, adopt a policy of promoting white births and suppress black births. But Südwest and Göringia could easily hold on with whatever small amount of weapons, ammo and fuel get their way. Südwest has it easier in that regard. The regime is stable and the last thing South Africa wants is another unstable state on her border bringing more migrants her way.

The thing with Namibia is, that over half the population lives in the far north near the Angolan border. It's easy to control the majority of Namibian territory (most is desert) but not so easy to control the population in the north. But that northern region is where the migrant work force is found that you need to make use of the country's mineral and agricultural resources. Historically the South Africans fought a long bush war in Angola to keep the SWAPO away from Namibia. When they had to withdraw from Angola their position in Namibia became unfun and more expensive to maintain too.

 

[Superdark33]

I dont see a reason why Goringia (ugh) would collapse violently. Their politics might be volitile but they seem to do pretty well on the military front.

At most id say theres a coup by a white general disgruntled by being sent to a losing war with ethiopia that would thaw into a non segragated republic, with the other small kingdoms between them and Namibia starting to form an African Union type of deal.

In west africa the former french colonies that got an enforced Apartheid-But-With-Arabs by the french would shed that peacefuly or violently depending on local factors once the french arent able to sustain it (very soon).


At any case once africa isnt meddled with by anyone too directly (except south africa, but that might also change) this world might see a beautiful African Union happening slowly, as the former totalist Congo groups thaw down one by one.


Africa can only go up from here imo.



I wonder how elsewhere in the world is doing...

 

[Casko]

I feel as if Goringia is an english translation of the name, if only to think that in German it'd be something akin to "Goringreich" which, atleast to me, feels a lot better.

Africa can only go up from here imo.

We can only hope, and all things considered, thanks to the lack of a UN or global food and development aids(which is a good thing when it comes to Africa, as UN And global food aid is one of the worst things to ever happen to Africa in the long term), the Countries might actually develop and sort out their issues. even if at times they will be bloody.

Considering the map was from 1994 we are looking at a "Göringian bush war" in the early 2000s-ish. Wonder if Germany will have shed its left-SPD government by then and resume support for Göringia? Would a DNVP, DKP or Zentrum government have the stomach for that? If so it could probably preserve a White ruled Göringia. Such a Göringia would probably face some form of long running low intensity insurgency from this Worlds equivalent of the ZANU but might with German support be able to end such a war on more favourable terms than OTL Rhodesia did.

if we use Goringia as TTL Rhodesia, we could see the Goringian state being much more successful than Rhodesia was, as the white settler population is higher, and no pressure from a global body like UN or USSR.

And if we think about Rhodesia, it could be, that in the long run, Japan(from Ethiopia) and Iran could well become trade partners with Goringia, as despite UN Pressure towards Rhodesia, Japan, Portugal and Iran among few other countries did support Rhodesia and did trade with it throughout the bush war and the short existence Rhodesia had.

if nothing else I'd find it quite funny that now that Germany abandons its settler colony successor states, that new ones simply pop in Germany's place to lust for resource extraction for firepower.

 

[Rifal]

if nothing else I'd find it quite funny that now that Germany abandons its settler colony successor states, that new ones simply pop in Germany's place to lust for resource extraction for firepower.

"Wer hat das Reich verraten"

"Sozialdemokraten"

Like that one guy predicted a couple of dozen pages back.

 

[Maximus101]

I'm not sure why people assuming Goringia will be successful, the last update sounded pretty dire.

Firstly, the comparisons to Rhodesia confuse me. They are similar in superficial ways in that there is a colonial minority ruling over another majority, but they have a major difference. Rhodesia actually developed a proper institutions with a proper justice system and rule of law. Goering, and his immediate successor, did the opposite. He filled the Mittelafrikan apparatus with loyal cronies and generally subverted laws in order to get his way and maintain his dictatorship. This system was very important in preventing subversion from Germany proper, but it produced poor managers. Their failures resulted in rebellion occuring in the first place (without Syndicalist intervention) and the "Germanization" of the war because of their incompetance.

Goringia does not have the institution building blocks that results in stable, rule of law nation. Goering pushing of loyalists in charge of different parts of the country have more similarities to Robert Mugabe management style. He only seemed to produce better results because the local inhabitants' problems and impoverishment were considered externalities in the economic data, which only measured profit from extraction. It was more of a corporate state than a nation, using white supremecy of a crutch to attract managers that would be loyal to Goering.

So I disagree with the Rhodesia comparisons. Mittelafrika was a tinpot dictatorship that undermined its institutions that would result in a robust internal economy.

I also don't see much of a future for it. The old Mittelafrikan management weren't the types using their funds to invest in productive capital improvements, but extravagant vanity projects. They of course did this because they relied on producing commodities with a competitive advantage in labour and environmental costs.

This leads to the issue of the demographics. People say that the whites will dominate, but is this actually competitive? We know the colonists have a very high opinion of themselves, which means they likely won't want to compete with blacks on labour costs. Now maybe they would compete on leveraging the education they have (though Goering admittedly pick poor quality people, they are only educated compared to the africans they actively denied but that requires capital investment, which we established they wasted on vanity projects, not to mention fighting a war. Said war means they can't really be as accepting of competitive nature.

Goringia is probably pushed around because of these reasons, other African countries can compete better on the resource front since they don't have a shrinking labour supply that has higher wage demands. It is unknown how educated their population is compared to others, except that they are more educated then their African run former Mittleafrikan states. The immediate major nations surrounding them, South Africa and Ethiopia, I feel have better education systems. South Africa is obvious why, Ethiopia is more a feeling given they got to sit around and soak up investments while Mittleafrika completely fell apart. The fact they beat the "European" military gives them extra marks. Also they have access to modern technologies while Goringia does not.

The lands geographically contained within Goringia have potential, but it is wasted by mismanagement and ideological commitments of its ruling class.

 

[Quaehaer]

I noticed that some people were talking about the Kingdoms around Göringia; and what they mean and how they got there. So that got me thinking, about what we actually know about the government type of all the nations. Can we tell which is a monarchy, and which are republics? I decided to color the most recent map with what we know

​

Red = Monarchy
Purple = Unknown for sure, but probably has monarchy
Green = Unknown
Light Purple = Unknown for sure, but probably has a republic
Blue = Republic


Some explanations for those not either clearly blue (a republic) or red (a monarchy):

​

- I decided to show the composite nations of the Nordic Federation, since it seems likely that the different nations have different types form within. The dot above the Federation is meant to represent that the Federal structure itself is more of a republic. There isn’t really any “King” of the Nordic Federation, but we know there is a Prime Minister. If there is a “king” representative position, there then it at least probably shares the institute among now with the Presidents from the government of republics

o Historically, the Icelandic independence movement was largely more actively republican. Essentially the implication was when it was announced Iceland’s Prime Minister surprisingly announced the creation of an Icelandic monarchy, it was basically the monarchy being forced onto Iceland by the Authoritarian Nationalist partners of the Entente. Who were trying to create a monarchy out of basically nothing, to essentially make themselves to be what they considered more ‘respectable’ globally. So, it feels possible that even though it seems that Iceland has somewhat come to actually respect the monarchy, they might still abandon it once they actually can.

o The Faeroe Islands basically have no firm “reason” really to be attached to Iceland. From what was told, they were grouped into Iceland most seemingly because the Entente felt they’d be more secure than alone. If they could, there’s a probability they’d choose to split and be represented as a separate, and not just autonomous, entity that would be inside the Federation

o Estonia joining the Nordic Federation probably means it changed from its old United Baltic Duchy preceding king. It is possible that they found a new Estonian one, or that the old UBD monarch remains as a figurehead for both the UBD remnants and Estonia. But it seems more likely it joined as a republic​

- Any nation that had its monarch “imposed” by Germany, as opposed to having it from itself, I chose to show as purple (most likely a monarchy). Even though it seems like the majority of these places have accepted, and maybe sometimes even embraced, their monarchs now (like Flanders-Wallonia), there is always the chance they decided to get rid of the system if the opportunity became available. This is a particularly interesting situation for North France. They are the most direct and recent imposition. Now, though, they have also had forty years to come to then respect François III (and the person he “represents” would be King until 2006). The German monarchy is clearly a foreign German imposition. So, they might sure abandon the monarchy if they could do so then. But, there are then possibly parallels with even OTL monarchy and Queen Elizabeth II. Many people and many organizations and political parties do have mixed feelings towards the institution of the monarchy in the OTL Commonwealth realms.. And the largest part of the people don’t really respect most royalty or nobility themselves, and (for the case in OTL) might actively dislike the presumptive successor to the throne. But most are warmer and more respecting to the monarch themselves. Many in these states would dislike the monarchy, but see Elizabeth as an institution, and really even part of global history. So even around the majority of groups that have a wish to abolish the monarchy, they have mainly decided until she has passed. So, the personal goodwill towards her personally won’t be such a large factor (and for OTL, active disdain towards Charles might even be a factor lamo). Its possible there could be a kind of circumstance in North France there for with François himself. And then even still, if that is the case, what then happens there for after he is succeeded

o The UBD might also be worth its own mention. The splitting of the United Baltic Dutch might be a reason for after this, the leftover then Latvia to have now decided to replace the monarchy. They could just as much keep it (especially since Germany would probably encourage them too). But this is at least a visible change that could have led to a change in the circumstance for that.​

- Hungary and Poland are likely to be republics, if allowed to do as we have before been told their populations desire. Slovakia a new state, and if Hungary is a republic, the it is likely to be as well. (also, the SDP seems unlikely to want to push more new monarchies)

August 3rd - In Poland, Stanek makes his boldest move yet, promising to abolish the German-dominated Regency Council and to give Poles a referendum on the head of state question: either to select a genuinely Polish monarch to occupy the long-empty throne or to abolish the titular monarchy entirely. German imperialists see it as an unacceptable break from the Reich, and the leaders of Mitteleuropa, seeing unrest spreading in their own countries, are furious.

August 25th - In Hungary, the Social Democratic Party of Hungary (MSZDP) win parliamentary elections, with their leader Imre Nagy becoming prime minister. The MSZDP promises a referendum on the continuance of the Hungarian monarchy.

- Greater Syria had the same monarch as Turkey, as a basically consolation to Turkey in negotiating the end of the Turko-Arabic War. Since their monarchy is Istanbul, instead of being there for the actual nation, it seems like this connection would be easy to break

- Judea-Peripalestine was “explicitly a Judea-Anglo Imperial affair”. A liberalized empire probably wouldn’t support this, and want to push off this reputation and say that the state is now its own separate entity. It would clearly still then keep close connections still after that to the Anglosphere though. If it keeps the Anglosphere Windsor monarchy then depends on how this is then done.

- Chad, Malarvi, and Mozambik were simply referred to as their names in the chapter. Their government was not mentioned. I assume from this and the context this means they are more likely to be republics. But there isn't many ways to actually really tell there

- I was going to put all the German decolonized nations as more likely to be a monarchy. Assuming then that they would most likely have similar arrangements to Malta. Then I noticed that Salone (Sierra Leone) was fully named as being a republic, while it also was a German colony beforehand. I placed all former German Oversea possessions as unknown then. Especially because the SPD could be more willing to let nations go immediately as republics, without keeping the Kaiser as an intermediary head of state. And because its possible that decolonization started for some maybe even in the 70s, which means time has been sufficient for that stage to be over even if done. Although it seems more likely most of this decolonization happened under the SPD, in the eighties, after 1983. And it seems more likely that most of these states might keep the Kaiser as their figurehead still for at least a fair time, like OTL with the Queen and general decolonization in the commonwealth.

​

o For Madagaskar, I assumed that because since it wasn’t mentioned as a republic then while Salone was, and still it is officially named “the Republic of Madagascar” in OTL, that this showed that while Salone did not keep the monarchy, Madagascar at least for now does​

- Mexico technically is still a monarchy in 1994. Since we know they abolish it in 1996, I included that with the most recent information

​

- India is obviously totally unknown. We can possibly guess with states like Mysore. But until we are informed its all for the most unknown

o Afghanistan, Nepal, and Bhutan are assumed as likely still monarchies. Although they may have been caught up in the chaos. Especially with Afghanistan, which in particular seems to have lost territory to Pakistan, presumably with war and conflict, and still present strife and turmoil
​

- It’s assumed that Nusantara would be still probably a monarchy. We haven’t heard about it though, so it can’t be for sure

- The same situation as above also applies to the Emirate of Turkestan

​

- The decolonization done by the Anglosphere in Oceania is kind of in the same circumstances as the one with more general German Oversea decolonization.

o Although with shared decolonization for Papua, that could also complicate it even more​

​

o Samoa is also shared decolonization, but it is then placed as most likely to be a monarchy. Since Samoa has always had a working elected monarchy under colonial rule, and this system is how it is governed as an independent state in OTL​

- We don’t really know what the official government of Indochina, Formosa, and Korea is. Both because we don’t know initially.

o Indochina was mentioned as having a “viceroy” from Japan, which could be seen as it’s officially a constitutional monarchy like Japan, with probably the same shared monarchy. However, Japan did not do this with any of its puppet’s governments in OTL. It always tired to frame itself as uniting Asia against colonialism. And so, it either supported “republican” governments, or it emplaced the local monarchies as puppet rulers (what they did to Vietnam OTL). But Japan also never tied to set up a Formosa in OTL then. And since they did directly own it at one point, they may have set up such as system like that there. So, its possible they were inspired. Though it would be hard for them to “claim”. Its possible that the position was only as a representative of the Japanese government, and it then was originally sent to operate over an occupation government. Like how MacArthur was head of OTL Japan’s military occupation, and could technically be said to have been Governor of Japan. And after a few years of military occupation of the state, an “official” republic of Indochina was established. (With still just as much actual influence form Japan)

o And also, because deradicalization of the Empire could have led to more acceptance and more changes. Formosa may have had the Japanese monarchy a, but in the new empire it may have changed. And Korea may have been released while keeping the monarchy with a personal union. But its such a change in attitude for the Japanese Empire, especially towards this, that it doesn’t seem really any more unlikely for it too be released as technically then a republic.​

Also, if anyone is interested, here is the map I used. Its just the one @cookfl posted for 1994. Its just some geography errors which have been cleaned up:

- Added Rome as an actual province. Like @prottimus mentioned, while it exists in game, for some reason it isn’t shown on the base map. They managed to fix it for the 1963 map, though, and then so I brought that fix over to the 1994 one.

- Hawaii should have always owned the Line Islands

- Fixed an inner border in East Indonesia shown as a national border

- Gave Bratislava to Slovakia, since we also know it should have also had the province before

- Syndoasia should have that long thin province. As it presumably claims all of the Gansu and Ningxia provinces east of the Yellow River, that can be taken without splitting the Ma Clique apart into two separate sections


Here is also the map of the blank states without the lines, if anyone is interest in that.

https://imgur.com/trpHUue

 

[Mirage III]

Why do Hungary own some lands in Austria?

 

[Quaehaer]

Why do Hungary own some lands in Austria?

From the Balkan Wars basically. There’s a lot more backgrounds throughout the AAR. But essentially Austria got completely screwed in Ausgleich 1937. It’s entire empire was still de facto together, but in reality independent. By 1947 it went full wanna-be Nazi national populist. In 1953 it started the Fourth Balkan War, allied with the other angry disgruntled Balkan nationalist states (Serbia and Greece), against the states defending the current order (Albanian, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Hungary). They end up losing when Romania joined the war near the end in exchange for Translyvania. By 1960 the war was then over. The post war negotiations basically went like this

Hungary: We won the war. Now we should get the chance to run what’s left of Austria-Hungary the way that we want

Germany: lamo no. How about this. We annex Austria and you can be independent all you want

Hungary: Absolutely not. Do you know how much we suffered in this. They attacked us, remember. We ‘re not going to settle for little here

Germany: You do have a point, they were absolutely crazy. They started to bomb me at the end there out of spite for not helping them lol. Ok, fine, how about this? You get to keep, and then directly control, the most of the lands you’ve now occupied. Austria gets to be an “independent” unsustainable rump little German puppet for like 30 years before we have to integrate it to save it from bankruptcy. Sound good?

 

[Superdark33]

Turkey is a monarchy run by the Ottomans, a German puppet with Syria in tow.

Turkestan is a monarchy led by the Emir of Bukhara



the nature of Estonia and Latvia is not really known, but id wager the two countries share the UBDuke as "head of state" while being completly independant of one another (with one being under the nordic fedaration and one as a client state in Europa)

 

[Quaehaer]

Turkey is a monarchy run by the Ottomans, a German puppet with Syria in tow.

Turkestan is a monarchy led by the Emir of Bukhara



the nature of Estonia and Latvia is not really known, but id wager the two countries share the UBDuke as "head of state" while being completly independant of one another (with one being under the nordic fedaration and one as a client state in Europa)

I’d be willing to be you’re right about Turkestan and Turkey. It’s just that we haven’t heard about it at all, which does leaves then some potenial room for development. I still agree it’s almost certainly still a monarchy though. It’s the same situation really as Nusantara. If it had changed it probably would have been big enough for us to hear about it. But they are both kind of isolated enough that it’s at least sort of plausible they could have changed without it being mentioned in “history book” until the post script. Again, I think that you’re right there though

Turkey did also have it being a monarchy “imposed” by the Germans. So it’s purple for essentially the same reason Eastern Europe or Flanders-Wallonia are. They probably like their King enough to at this point keep him, but there’s always a chance they didn’t

Syria is actually also a German puppet. Politically, the only “official” relation it has to Turkey that we know for sure is with the official name of the state, and the shared monarchy. It seems to make sense it could probably do what Germany says, regardless of any of Turkey’s opinions. It’s more of a weak connection to Turkey, and Germany is liberalizing along with losing some control over its middle eastern puppets (shown by them losing Egypt to an actively antagonist force). The people in control were explicitly actively then described as being in a “fragile” circumstance. My guess is Turkey and Syria are meant to be kind of “Japan and Korea” like figures towards Mittleuropa (“foreign”cultures but still allies from a legacy of war) So they probably are still both friendly with Germany. But we don’t know if a more independent Syria would want to leave its nominal King, or keep more the monarchy

In Turkey, the Treaty of Knossos represented the final end of the Ottoman Empire. Already shrunken by the Syndicalists in the East, Turkey was forced to spin-off its remaining Arab lands into a newly formed ‘Turkic Kingdom of Levant’ ruled by a fragile alliance of Turkish-ethnic Syrian Turkmen and pro-Turkish Sunni Arabs concerned by the rising power of Shia Persia

Germany pressed for a modernized Turkish monarchy to be restored as a unifying symbol for the divided and battered country, free from the baggage of the Caliphate. The Turkish junta invited the exiled Ottoman prince Osman Fuad, a dashing general and rare hero of Turkey’s Weltkrieg campaigns, to take the combined throne of Turkey-Levant, no longer as Imperial Sultan but styled as a Western king. The new King returned the capital to royal Istanbul. Northern Cyprus was restored to Turkey (with Southern Cyprus passing to Greece), and the personal union of the Levantine and Turkish thrones maintained an illusion of international power, but overall it was clear the era of independent Turkish influence was largely over.

Turkey faced a difficult path ahead, reconciling itself to a post-imperial actuality, while Turkic Levant’s future seemed murkier still.

The UBD is totally an interesting situation to know more about, I agree. It would be intriguing to know what relationship the entire Nordic Federation now has to Germany. With two former Mittleuropan states now as members, there are a lot of roadways in which that could have developed, or that may open after