The Prisoners of Silence - NSDAP 1936-1991 (History and background)

[unmerged(44312)]

Peace at last and also a Jewish homeland in Palestine? So the Levant will be divided between the powers!? A pro-US Palestine, Saudiarabia and Jordan against Fascist-backed Syria and Iraq, with Egypt and Lebanon as neutrals?

As always Karelian magnific update, I can't wait to see how the world will adjust to three superpowers competing against each other!

 

[Karelian]

Peace at last and also a Jewish homeland in Palestine? So the Levant will be divided between the powers!? A pro-US Palestine, Saudiarabia and Jordan against Fascist-backed Syria and Iraq, with Egypt and Lebanon as neutrals?

Quite accurate. Well, more like yet another truce and informal rules for avoiding nuclear confrontations in the future and instead fighting the future wars in the Middle-East and the rest of the Third World by local proxies.

And then there´s Iran.

How useful will free and fair elections be? I can easily see a victory for anti-American parties. Meanwhile, if the Germans are supported Pan-Arab nationalists, does the US turn to the Islamist parties?

Well, determing what "free and fair" actually means and what kind of political forces are allowed to enter the elections is naturally something the United States will pay adequate attention into. I think it will be a similar story when compared to postwar Japan, West Germany and Italy. Of course Lebanon shall remain internally unstable and divided, while Naguib will continue to control Egypt and thus steer the country away from it´s Nasserist phase towards pro-Western neutrality.

Rise of islamism is interesting: where will the SS-trained and German-funded jihadis from all over the Muslim world go once the guns fall silent in Syria? Naguib won´t be as harsh towards the Muslim Brotherhood as Nasser was, but how will that affect to the political situation of Egypt. Then again the situation of postwar Palestine won´t be a rallying cry for radical anti-Western islamism unlike in OTL.

-What's the nuclear balance like? For most of our fifties, the US could probably have gotten out of a war with "only" a million casualties, since the Soviets lacked a way to hit America; the reverse, however, was not true.

It strongly favours the US, and German missile and bomber programs are struggling to increase the ranges of their latest delivery systems enough to provide credible threat against North-American mainland. The Junkers Ju 390 "Amerika Bomber" is a paper tiger, bit like the Myasishchev M-4 - there´s too few of them and they are too slow to avoid modern SAMs and interceptors.

The problem lies in the vulnerability of Britain and southern Italy. While US could most likely "win" a nuclear war, the German retaliation against US first strike would doom the European members of NATO. Then there´s the question of submarine-borne missiles - the Soviets had their first Whiskey boat fitted with single P-5 Pyatyorka as early as 1956, and so it could be argued that the Germans would propably have created similar weapon system by 1953. Naturally they are still just toys when compared to the US Strategic Bomber Command, but the arms race is fastly producing improved systems - and consuming the limited resources of the Third Reich.

-The "Nazi Comintern"; while I believe it, how would this work in practice? "Order yourself along national socialist lines to better serve the Aryan race!"

Bohle is just meddling in things that aren´t exactly within his authority. It will cost him, see below. And while this is something we won´t discuss more since it´s against forum rules, do note that NSDAP/AO focuses it´s efforts to South American and South African countries. Turkey is just an odd sidestep, mostly caused by the fact that all other important Nazi foreign policy organizations are meddling with Middle-East. But don´t worry, there´s still plenty of idiotic ideology based on two resessive genes (not to mention the bitter in-fighting between various bureaus and organizations) around to prevent New Europe from acting too reasonably in the field of foreign policy.

Since the Germans are the ones oppressing the Caucasian peoples, surely their Pan-Turanian promises are a bit fake?

The Germans are about to find out that simply pouring in money and making empty promises of future support won´t do them any good in the long run. Things are going according to the plans of certain elements within the MAH leadership in Turkey, for example.

 

[unmerged(103753)]

son of a bitch this is good. how do u have the paitence to write this thing???

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

Excellent update. Again, it's like reading a history book.

 

[Nathan Madien]

Luckily for Herter, Ambassadors McGhee and Kroll had not spent the week between 7th and 14th of October idly chatting, but had intead largely done the actual hard work for him. The German proposals presented by Hess in the "official" Istanbul Conference were almost identical with the ones McGhee and Kroll had ultimately both agreed in their cabinet meeting on the approval of Berlin and Washington. The principle was the same it had been in Zürich: ideological boundaries and spheres of interest would be readjusted according to current frontline situation. Once it was mutually agreed to of allow Syria to retain it´s Baathist government, the rest of the treaty seemed to provide nearly all the objectives that British and US governments had originally set to Operation Damask. Suez would become a demilitarized, international territory. Egypt and Leganon would arrange free, internationally supervised elections within six months.

So it seems the Allies were able to achieve most of their goals without further bloodshed.

I have a question about Suez. When you say "Suez", are you just referring to the canal? If so, how would the canal be demilitarized?

 

[Karelian]

So it seems the Allies were able to achieve most of their goals without further bloodshed.

I have a question about Suez. When you say "Suez", are you just referring to the canal? If so, how would the canal be demilitarized?

What I have in mind is a bit like El Auja Zone, just centered around the channel area itself. IMO annexing Sinai is not on the cards since it would further alienate Naguib´s Egypt from West.

And you are correct, the United Nations have been able to stop the spread of Fascism. More of this in the next update.

 

[unmerged(58737)]

Per New Europe's noted limited resources, how did you come to this conclusion? Germany has great swathes of the Earth under her belt in one way or another.

 

[Karelian]

Per New Europe's noted limited resources, how did you come to this conclusion? Germany has great swathes of the Earth under her belt in one way or another.

Conclusion about the outcome of the Middle-Eastern War or the state of the world in general? Well, if you look at These maps you can see that the New Europe is firmly confined to continental Europe and European Russia, surrounded by Allies and Soviet Union from all sides. Yet this (forcefully) unified area contains vast population and resource base to utilize.

Outside this sphere of influence that has stayed unchanged since the end of WWII the German government has only a few local allies, whereas the Free World is spread far and wide.

The fact that few governments (all for their own reasons) have aligned themselves with Berlin doesn´t change this fact one bit.

 

[unmerged(58737)]

Conclusion about the outcome of the Middle-Eastern War or the state of the world in general? Well, if you look at These maps you can see that the New Europe is firmly confined to continental Europe and European Russia, surrounded by Allies and Soviet Union from all sides. Yet this (forcefully) unified area contains vast population and resource base to utilize.

Outside this sphere of influence that has stayed unchanged since the end of WWII the German government has only a few local allies, whereas the Free World is spread far and wide.

The fact that few governments (all for their own reasons) have aligned themselves with Berlin doesn´t change this fact one bit.

Going by the 1959 map, if we're not taking the states receiving US aid into account, then Berlin is friendly with a pretty relative amount of the world isn't it? In terms of industry I think NATO and New Europe should be on par with each other. The non-aligned nations I assume generally have no reservations about exchanges with any of the three powers so long as it's beneficial.

 

[Karelian]

Going by the 1959 map, if we're not taking the states receiving US aid into account, then Berlin is friendly with a pretty relative amount of the world isn't it? In terms of industry I think NATO and New Europe should be on par with each other. The non-aligned nations I assume generally have no reservations about exchanges with any of the three powers so long as it's beneficial.

That map needs to be of updated. They way I currently see it is Egypt definitively isn´t in the Axis camp in 1959, and neither is Iraq. That leaves Syria, Sudan, South Africa, Argentina and Sarit Dhanarajata´s Thailand to good terms with Berlin.

By 1984 you can see that the Axis influence in the world has actually decreased even further when compared to the relative strengths of the major powers and their alliances. And the internal stability of the few true Axis partners (Argentina and South Africa) is often far from good.

Industrially it is good to remember that European rebuilding effort and internal problems consumed a lion´s share from their resources for a long time after the war. While it is true that the military-industrial complex of New Europe has so far been able to stay in competition between the West and the Soviet Union, the standard of living of average citizen of Third Reich (and the rest of New European countries) is roughly on par with Soviet standards and way behind Western prosperity.

And in a tripolar world the trade between rivalling ideological blocks isn´t definitively free, and the neutral countries have to make careful considerations about their potential trading partners.

 

[Nathan Madien]

And in a tripolar world the trade between rivalling ideological blocks isn´t definitively free, and the neutral countries have to make careful considerations about their potential trading partners.

You probably already mentioned it, but how does being isolated in Europe affect Switzerland?

 

[trekaddict]

You probably already mentioned it, but how does being isolated in Europe affect Switzerland?

Or Sweden for that matter. I could see both being Neuropa members in all but name.

 

[Skarion]

As mentioned earlier, great AAR!!!

Just a few questions:

Doesn't the New Europe's occupation of Baku, Ukraine, former Moscowprovincial area &:c give it comparable resources with the combined NATO?

And as you mentioned the rebuilding of New Europe was needed and if New Europe is isolated from the west (no Marshall-plan?) then doesn't that mean that the US economical expansion that happends IRL never occures and instead it's Sweden, Switzerland and undamaged areas of the New Europe that will be the headfigures of the global wealth?

 

[Karelian]

You probably already mentioned it, but how does being isolated in Europe affect Switzerland?

Or Sweden for that matter. I could see both being Neuropa members in all but name.

As mentioned earlier, great AAR!!!

Thanks for all the feedback once again. Here´s
A summary of the situation of Sweden and Switzerland

Doesn't the New Europe's occupation of Baku, Ukraine, former Moscowprovincial area &:c give it comparable resources with the combined NATO?

In terms of raw material and in theory, yes. But utilizing the resources of the former Reichskommissariats is still far from easy and risk-free.

And as you mentioned the rebuilding of New Europe was needed and if New Europe is isolated from the west (no Marshall-plan?) then doesn't that mean that the US economical expansion that happends IRL never occures and instead it's Sweden, Switzerland and undamaged areas of the New Europe that will be the headfigures of the global wealth?

Marshall Plan did became reality, but only in the Allied-held parts of Europe, namely in southern Italy and Britain. Few neutral countries were enlisted for this aid as well. And instead of common global markets, the international trade in the Cold War world is strictly divided between rivalling economic blocks: Various western free trade areas, New Europe´s Großraumwirtschaft and the Comecon.

 

[Nathan Madien]

And instead of common global markets, the international trade in the Cold War world is strictly divided between rivalling economic blocks: Various western free trade areas, New Europe´s Großraumwirtschaft and the Comecon.

So how would these economic block rivals affect NAFTA?

 

[Karelian]

So how would these economic block rivals affect NAFTA?

They aren´t rivals in the international stage, but more likely parts of the former global markets are currently quite cut off from the global trade network.

While there is minor (and steadily growing) trade between Comecon countries and West, New Europe and the other bloks are practically in permanent trade embargo with one another. German trade with countries of New Europe amounts more than 70 percent of their total foreign trade, and the non-European Axis allies and neutrals form 15 percent of the rest. Naturally the large raw material base and policies of self-sufficiency and autarky help the European situation to some extent, but the economy of New Europe is still more or less cut off from the international financial markets and increasingly burdened by complex foreign exchange regulations.

Naturally this drives the United States to seek new markets for their products, and this has interesting implications for Third World countries in Asia and Africa.

 

[Karelian]

Aftermatch of the Middle-Eastern War

"This has been the way of life forged by nine years of fear and force. What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no turning is found on this dread road? The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated.

The worst is atomic war.

The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labour of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth. Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point the hope that come with this spring of 1954. This is one of those times in the affairs of nations when the gravest choices must be made, if there is to be a turning toward a just and lasting peace. It is a moment that calls upon the governments of the world to speak their intentions with simplicity and with honesty. It calls upon them to answer the question that stirs the hearts of all sane men: is there no other way the world may live?"*

*Part of "The High Cost of Peace"-speech held by President MacArthur on December 1953.

Threat of Baathism

"A Zürich Accord for the Middle-East" was a common headline in the news referring to the outcome of the Istanbul Conference on November 1953. A truce that officially ended the hostilities in the region was soon followed by a declaration of independence of a new state and formation of new international organizations.

The United States and it´s allies had ultimately emerged victorious from a conflict that had never officially called a war in the first place. The Allied military intervention initiated by President Truman and PM Eden had succesfully foiled the German attempts to dominate Middle-East, but when the guns fell silent in the Syrian Front it soon became clear that the war had also changed the political landscape of the whole region for good.

The Baathist ideology that mixed Pan-Arabic ideals with National Socialism may have been defeated in the battlefields of Palestine and Lebanon, but it´s lasting influence and support among the Arab world was now widely recognized as the major threat for pro-Western states and regimes in the region. But at the same time this rising political force was also greatly beneficial for US foreign policy. For whom else but the United States could the regimes of Transjordan, Saudi-Arabia and Iraq count on in the postwar situation with their increasingly hostile and dissatisfied populations?

For the local Hashemite and Saudi monarchs Baathism was a serious threat, since it mobilized Arab nationalism in a way that had been previously unknown in the Middle-East. While this new ideology had sustained severe losses due the death of Nasser and it´s defeats in Middle-Eastern War, the notorious Sawt al-Arab radio station soon resumed its broadcasts from Syria. With modern equipment from German Propagandaministerium, the "Voice of Arabs" broadcasted recorded speeches of Nasser accompanied by other forms of Baathist propaganda. And while this message spread far and wide, MacArthur Administration sought to counterbalance it.

Unified by common enemies - METO

Since the pernament presence of Western troops was a rather volatile issue in Middle-East (and especially in Iraq), MacArthur Administration had to find an alternative way to provide support for local pro-Western leaders struggling with internal dissent. Before the war an idea of a joint defensive pact between Transjordan, Iraq, Saudi-Arabia and the Gulf states would not have been feasible, but the fate of Egyptian monarchy and the Baathist coups in Lebanon and Syria had alarmed the leaders of these countries enough to force them to set their mutual enmities aside - at least in theory and for now to secure American economic assistance and military protection.

Just like the Istanbul Protocol resembled the Zürich Accord in many ways, the Middle-East Treaty Organization, METO, was widely seen as a local equivalent of NATO. Just like it´s Atlantic counterpart, METO committed it´s member nations to mutual cooperation and protection "against internal and external threats." And while the mistrust between Hashemites and Saudis was still strong enough to set strong conditions for intervention to the internal affairs of member states, METO was still a rather homogenous organization. For many common citizens of METO member countries this military alliance between their leaders together with continued British colonial presence in Persian Gulf was a painful reminder of the oppressed state of the Arab world.

And while the regimes of remaining Arab monarchies became increasingly tied to the West, CIA and SIS begun to foster and economically support local pro-Western and secular political forces to create counterbalance for Baathism. These operations where paradoxically most successful in an area where the postwar planners had expected most trouble.

Palestine - Back to Square One?

It was clear from the beginning that the fate of the former British Mandate of Palestine would be a decisive factor in the future relations between the Arab world and West. The question of Palestine had huge symbolic value for both sides, but after the military situation had rendered the pro-German Arab factions powerless to interfere, the United Nations was in a situation where it was able to define the future status of the former Mandate rather freely. This task was given to United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, a specialist group that had been formed after Operation Damask, when US troops had occupied the whole former Mandate, forcing the various Arab militias to either disperse or turn into small guerrilla units. The General Assembly authorized the UNSCOP to investigate the conflict in Palestine, and devise a solution for the future status of the area. Members of UNSCOP included personel from Australia, Canada, Republic of Italy, India, Brazil, Guatemala, Iran, Peru, Uruguay and Mexico.

In 1955 UNSCOP represented it´s plan to General Assembly. The report concluded that although sharply divided by political issues, the peoples of Palestine were "sufficiently advanced to govern themselves independently." The key part of the plan was called Transitional period. The UNSCOP plan recommended that there should be a transitional period preceding the grant of independence in Palestine. During the transitional period a new governmental organization would be established, and through this organization would guarantees for such vital matters as the protection of minorities, and the safeguarding of the Holy Places and religious interests be ensured. The plan did acknowledge that such restoration of foreign control "would in all likelihood only serve to aggravate the present difficult situation in Palestine unless it will be related to a specific and definitive solution which will go into effect immediately upon the termination of this period."

During the transitional period the authority entrusted with the task of administering Palestine and preparing it for independence was to be responsible to the United Nations. Since the United Nations was allready occupying Palestine, the "enforcement measures on an extensive scale" that the plan estimated were allready in place in the form of strict US military occupation. UNSCOP had no illusions about the current situation on the ground. The plan stated that "taking into account the fact that devising a solution which will be fully acceptable to both Jews and Arabs seems to be utterly impossible, the prospect of imposing a solution upon them would be a basic condition of any recommended proposal."

The most difficult task of the UNSCOP was clearly do devise a plan for the Governance of Palestine. Two possible solutions emerged: a partition plan favoured by the Zionist leadership, and a federal state plan similar to the Grady Morrison plan that had been devised by the British authorities during the time of the Mandate, but at that time rejected by both Jews and Arabs. Ultimately UNSCOP endorsed the federal state plan in favour of a partition plan. The reasons for this decision were simple.

The Jewish minority was estimated to be too small and vulnerable to hold out in their own separate state, while political specialists of Middle-East knew well how much outrage such a solution would stir up in the Arab world that was allready in turmoil due the Middle-Eastern War. In addition the Arab organizations that had been hostile to Grady Morrison Plan had lost their positions during the Civil War, and UNSCOP was able to work with local forces that had been opponents of the previous Arab rulers of Palestine. This did not make them any more symphatetic to the plight of the Jewish minority, but in order to obtain power in future Palestine they were more than willing to compromise on terms they felt favourable to themselves.

And despite the earlier UNSCOP fears that a canton system “might easily entail an excessive fragmentation of the governmental processes, and in its ultimate result, would be quite unworkable”, the decentralized political structure turned out the be the road to an uneasy compromise that the former enemies were forced to make in Palestine.

The International Trusteeship System and the UNPC in Palestine

In 1945, under Chapter XII of the Charter, the United Nations had established the International Trusteeship System for the supervision of Trust Territories placed under it by individual agreements with the States administering them. Under Article 77 of the Charter, the Trusteeship System applied to:

- Territories held under Mandates established by the League of Nations after the First World War;
- Territories detached from "enemy States" as a result of the Second World War;
-Territories voluntarily placed under the System by States responsible for their administration.

The basic objective of the System was to promote the political, economic and social advancement of the Territories and their development towards self-government and self-determination. It also encouraged respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and recognition of the interdependence of peoples of the world. New territories could be placed under Trusteeship only by means of individual Trusteeship Agreements approved by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly. Thus the Trusteeship Agreement of Palestine was a rather foregone conclusion - the former Western Allies holding the positions of the General Assembly agreed with the UNSCOP plan, the Jewish Agency leadership ultimately agreed to comply with it´s terms, and the legal representatives of Palestinian Arabs that United Nations negotiated with were willing to make a deal that secured their own personal position in the future government of Palestine.

The actual work of establishing and governing the UN Trusteeship of Palestine was conducted by United Nations Palestine Commission, a new bureau tasked to:

1. Establish the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish cantones and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the Assembly's recommendations.

2). The progressive assumption of responsibility for the administration of Palestine, pending the establishment of the independent State.

3). The establishment of Provisional Councils of Government in the Arab and Jewish cantones and the direction of their activities in the transitional period.

4). The approval of election regulations governing democratic elections to constituent assemblies of the State; and the appointment of the Preparatory Economic Commission which is to pave the way for the Economic Union and the Joint Economic Board, envisaged in Resolution GA 181.

One of the key questions in this process was naturally the fate of the 490.000 strong Jewish community that had formed formed roughly one-fourth (26,5% to be more precise) of the total pre-war population of 1 845 000 people. While the Jewish Agency had in theory given the US leadership a free hand to determine the future status of the region when they agreed to support the US occupation of Palestine during Operation Damask, it was still clear that reaching a lasting compromise between Agency and Palestinian Arabs would be extremely difficult. Internally the Agency was divided in their opinion about the best course of action, but ultimately both David Ben-Gurion and Chaim Weizmann reached a compromise with UNPC proposals. The hardest part of this agreement included a major re-organization and disarmament of Haganahthat was that officially converted into a a civilian emergency services organization with no role in defence, law enforcement, riot control, internal security or any other law and order tasks. This agreement was reached after the United States guaranteed to "create pernament military presence to Jewish parts of Palestine as a guarantee of local stability and security of minorities."

The federal structure of the state of Palestine, divided into Arab- and Jewish-majority cantones reflected the postwar situation on the ground rather than some carefully analyzed compromise.

Postwar life in Palestine

Trying to summarize the political life of Palestinian Arabs during the British Mandate after the Arab Revolt is difficult. Trying to do so after the the Middle-Eastern War is nearly impossible, since the early years of Trusteeship of Palestine were filled with hectic political activity. Behind the scenes Abhwehr, local powerful families and Western intelligence services were all trying to influence things to go their way, and when the dust settled after the first Provisional Council elections, the situation was following:

Istiqlal, Arab Independence Party (hizb al-istiqlal al-`arabi), was moderately pan-Arab movement founted by during the Mandate period by Awni Abd al-Hadi, a long-lasting political figure in Palestine´s political life. Istiqlal took an interest in the plight of Arab peasants and workers, and sought to rally support from these groups. More remarkable than it´s social program was the fact that the party recruited most of it´s members not from Jerusalem, but from the northern towns like Nablus, and was identified with none of the great families. Compared to the notables and their ”parties”, the Istiqlalists were radical, but throughly respectable. In ideological terms, they tended towards the left, yet they were ready and able to translate national demands into Islamic language, or at least to furnish them with Islamic overtones.

More conventional than the Istiqlal were the competing ”parties” of the Jerusalem notables, which were essentially loose associations of individual families and their clients, and were generally perceived as such. They neither formulated a clearly defined program or engaged in regular activities beyond the publication of statements, petitions, or at best of newspapers. Nor did they address broader segments of the population.

The National Defense Party(hizb al-difa´al-watani) was largely seen as the party of the Nashashibi family. It was another old party that had emerged in December 1934, when Raghib al-Nashashibi was defeated in the Jerusalem municipal elections and not elected as a mayor. The inaugural meeting in Jaffa was attented by some one thousand participants, among them some of the richest Arab landowners and entrepreuneurs in the country, including numerous Christians. The National Defense Party could count on the support of two newspapers, Mir´at al-Sarq (Mirror of the East) and Filastin, that both supported the policies of federal separation and UN Trusteeship in general.

In June 1935 the Arab-Palestinian Reform Party (hizb al-islah al-´arabi al-filastini) was formed to defend the interests of the Khalidi family, which in the twentieth century repeatedly occupied the office of mayor of Jerusalem, but otherwise had little political influence. Ostensibly pan-Arabist, the party was in fact ”moderate” and advocated unification of Palestine with Transjordan.

Already in the 1930s, certain members of the established families made greaters efforts to reach beyond their own circles to other strata of urban and rural society. Palestine Communist Party, founded by former members of the Socialist Workers Party in 1922, had great difficulties establishing itself. Until 1929 it was almost exclusively Jewish, and even when it decided to devote greater attention to Arab peasants and Bedouins, its influence remained weak. It gained only a few Arab members in the urban militeu, and in the Arab villages it showed no presence at all.

In broader political terms the The National Defense Party, the Reform Party, and the fragmented political alliance of the National Bloc (al kutla al-wataniyya) were all ”moderate” competitors, critics and old opponents of the Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Yet before the war they had been too much at odds with one another to form an effective and cohesive ”opposition.”

During the time of the Mandate period the Nashashibis and Al-Husainis had struggled for supermacy among Palestinian Arabs. As countermove to Nashashibi political activity, the supporters of the Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, Grand Mufti on Jerusalem had formed the Palestinian Arab Party (al-bizb al´arabi al-filastini). To demonstrate their ecumenical character, they elected Jamal al-Husaini, a cousin of the Mufti, as president, and the Greek-Catholic entrepreuner Alfred Rok from Jaffa as vice president. Religious dignitaries were strongly represented, as were a number of rural notable families. In addition to Jerusalem and other cities, the party was also able to open branches in rural areas. In February 1936 they founded a youth section, Firaq al-Shabab, later renamed Al-Futuwwa, that adopted as their motto: ”Freedom is my right, independence is my goal, Arabism my principle, Palestine my land alone. I bear witness to this, so help me God.” Jews were thereby denied any political claim to Palestine. This party was not suprisingly banned and dispanded from politics in Trusteeship, and it´s supporers either joined to the moderate parties or (in a case of small but aggressive minority) became increasingly radicalized.

Palestinian guerrilla commander Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni. When he and his brother fled to Syria in exile, the former political prestige of their family quickly waned during the postwar years, as the other old clans and new political forces drew away their support.

And then there were the militant secret societies, which in some ways resembled those that had been active during World War I.

Most important of these groups were the followers of Izz al-Din al-Qassam, quintessential Islamic fighter and martyr. During the first years of UN Trusteeship the occupying US troops this group caused most trouble to the creation of stable political conditions. Qassamites, as their contemporaries called them, were a new force in Palestinian politics. The early death of al-Qassam in a clash with a British patrol in 1935 did not end his movement or his ideas of piety, struggle and sacrifice. The fact that he left behind no writings made it all the easier for diverse groups and individuals to appropriate his legacy, nationalists and Islamists alike. Hundreds of volunteers who fought against the foreign occupiers were inspired by al-Qassam´s motto ”hadha jihad, nasr aw instishhad!” (This is jihad – victory or martyrdom.)

UN-administered Palestine ultimately avoided the turmoil that had marked the last years of British Mandate. One of the major reasons for this was the large budget and effective organization of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA.) By providing effective and extensive housing, education, health care, social services and emergency aid to the internally displaced Palestinian refugees the organization was able to pacify the situation in Trusteeship. In the US the critizism for the usage of UN funds for such purposes was suprisingly mild due the fact that this aid was given to Jewish and Arab communities alike. While it´s political life remained turbulent with occasional acts of political violence and terrorism and the whole state was still bitterly divided along ethnic and religious lines, the federal structure of the Provisional Councils of Government along with the internal economical connections were slowly but steadily taking shape. Palestine was becoming much like it´s northern neighbour Lebanon - internally divided but still somewhat functioning state, where the UN (US Army)-enforced status quo kept the situation in control.

After David Ben-Gurion retired from politics in 1955, Moshe Sharett became the most important leader of the Yishuv community. He sought to keep the extremists among the Jewish community in check and while he privately admitted to have preferred a two-state solution, he still did his best to promote cooperation with the moderate Palestinian Arab leadership.

Syrian soldier on guard in the Kurd territories in the north. The Kurdish guerrilla activity inreased radically after the Middle-Eastern War as a result of Soviet foreign policy change.
Rest of the region - winners and losers of the postwar situation

United States and President Douglas MacArthur:
The old general was closer to starting World War III than most liked to admit after the crisis, but the outcome of the Middle-Eastern War was still rightly viewed as a victory that washed away some of the bitterness assosiated to the outcome of World War II. The Nazis and their Arab henchmen had been met in the battlefield and defeated.

United States had also now clearly bypassed Britain as the most important Western state in the Middle-East, and the establishment of METO cemented this transformation. American military might was also arriving to Middle-East with full force, with first major, pernament bases established to northern Palestine as soon as 1955.

United Nations: Middle-Eastern War was the testing ground of the successor of Allies, and the new organization survived it´s trial. With the Security Council occupied by former Western Allies and General Assembly still controlled by the same group of countries, the United Nations got a good start during it´s first decades before the admission of new member states and constantly expanding bureucracy and more demanding global tasks begun to show the limits and flaws of UN in the 1970s.

Britain:
The growing tide of local nationalism largely undermined the political victory PM Eden won from getting Britain involved to Operation Damask. While Suez was open, keeping the Commonwealth territories in order in Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf became increasingly difficult during the 1950s, when Malayan Emergency and first nationalistic uprisings in African colonies kept straining Britain´s dwindling resources. The major prestige problem for Britain was finally solved in 1955 when US Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East, South Asia and Africa George McGhee managed to mediate a second round of negotiations between Eden and Mosaddeq of Iran. While Eden privately hated Mosaddeq like poison, the British economic interests and reason ultimately prevailed and Britain accepted similar nationalization deal than it had signed with Iraq during the Middle-Eastern War. The fact that both sides were willing to accept had more to do with Soviet actions than their mutual enmity, and relations between the government of Iran and Western powers remained uneasy.

Facing the de facto loss of control of the northern parts of his country to Soviet-supported separatists, Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq was forced to swallow his pride and reach an agreement with Britain. While this hurted his domestic support somewhat, Mosaddeq did secure his position against possible foreign-funded coup attempts.

Third Reich

The Middle-Eastern War raised the profile of many prominent figures of German administration, and caused others to lose their status. Within the ruling "triumvirate" Speer and his cautious approach gained more leverage when postwar intelligence analysis revealed how quickly the situation had escalated to the brink of a nuclear war. Reichspräsident Lammers and other Party hardliners were thus put into internal opposition - something that would have significant consequences later on. For SS the war had been a boon. The organization had been able to start its recovery from the earlier purges, and the fact that the SS-trained volunteer units had saved the Baathist war effort from total collapse gained the Waffen-SS new prestige. At this point the fate of the thousands of German-trained veterans warriors who had come from Caucasus and the Balkans to wage holy war in Middle-East didin´t consern anybody, as the remaining SS volunteer units were disbanded soon after the end of the war. Parteikanzler Goebbels had once again proven true to his reputation as a ruthless powermonger and a shrewd negotiator, who had managed to avoid the criticism directed towards the hardliners by switching sides at the right moment. Propagandaministerium was also gaining a new role in Middle-East, where all sides of the Cold War sought to promode their own ideologies. For NSDAP/AO the postwar situation also seemed rather beneficial. With Abwehr and Auswärtiges Amt temporarily out of favour due the costly failure of Operation Zedernholtz, NSDAP/AO received more funding and a greater role in propaganda operations in Latin America, South Africa - and Turkey. Operations in Turkey continued while the Turkish Secret Service MAH kept observing and infiltrating the forming Pan-Turanist underground movement in secresy. And Rudolf Hess once again dutifully fulfilled his role as a popular figurehead, representing the public face of the Third Reich in Istanbul Conference.

Turkey:
During the Middle-Eastern War President İnönü had argued that foreign powers were respecting the neutrality and territorial integrity of Turkey solely because they were satisfied for the status quo, and that growing power of fascism within the country would surely stir up trouble in Kurd territories just like the rise of too Western-oriented government would bring difficulties to the Armenian border and Turkey´s growing trade contacts with New Europe. After the war his statement proved to be all too accurate. Soviet leadership was dissatisfied with the way Turkey had realigned itself from pro-Western neutrality towards a new kind of foreign policy where friendship with Berlin was deemed more important. Yet new Soviet foreign policy had only indirect effect to Turkey, and the country benefitted greatly from it´s courted position where both Berlin and Washington sought to lure Turkey towards their camp by economic means. Their mutual guarantees for the current borders and neutral position of Turkey were also included to the final agreement signed in Istanbul, thus giving Ankara a better position to resist foreign pressure in the future.

Egypt:
The new junta led by generals Al Sadat and Naguib soon changed the political course of Egypt. While Nasser was never personally critiziced due his immense popularity, the excesses of Baathism were brought under sharp critizism and political oppression of other parties was soon lifted - with the exception of Communists, who were small and marginal enough to be demonized as the assasins of Nasser. Naguib´s desire to begin the process that would transfer the power into the hands of a democratic government through free elections as quickly as possible was met by Al Sadat´s more cautious point of view, and postwar Egypt remained a paternal autocracy where the two generals were slowly giving political parties more room to operate, trying to keep the situation in control while seeking a new "third way" ahead in the Middle-East.

Syria:
As the Baathist regimes of Lebanon and Egypt came to an end, Damascus became the new center of political Pan-Arabism. Reconstruction of the damage of the war continued with German economic support, and politically it was clear that the current Syrian leadership was a mere puppet regime brought to power by Germans and still firmly in control of Berlin. This made the German propaganda efforts to promote their political ideology in Middle-East more difficult when compared to the time when Egypt was still ruled by Nasser. His charisma and clearly independent position had been much better source of inspiration than the German-funded propaganda efforts led by Grand Mufti Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. It was rather hard to make an outrage about the oppression of Palestinian Arabs when their living standards and literacy rates soon bypassed their neighbours, and much of the areas old political elites were still firmly in power in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the country.

Lebanon:

Whole Lebanon was in the same shape as Beirut after the hardest fighting of the whole Middle-Eastern War - a bloody mess. The uneasy coalition of various Lebanese opposition groups who had been unified only in their opposition of the Baathist dictatorship was further destabilized as years went by and the poor locals of Southern Lebanon could only watch how their Arab kin in Palestine received huge amounts of foreign aid while Lebanese reconstruction program received only trinklets from the UN.

For the United States Lebanon had only value as a neutral buffer between Syria and Palestine, and thus the internal political life in the country kept deteriorating - but the memory of Operation Dauntless kept the pro-Syrian groups from trying anything too radical during the first postwar decades.

Transjordan:

When the US diplomats managed to convince King Abdullah I to keep Transjordan out from the fighting in Palestine in 1948, the Hashemite monarch aligned his regime into a tight alliance with US and Britain. His decision to stay out from the fighting in Palestine made him a despised figure in the Arab world, but the king had his reasons. Abdullah I was greatly alarmed by the rise of Nasser and Pan-Arabism and calculated that only Western power could preserve the Transjordanian monarchy in the long run. Thus he strongly supported the consept of METO after the war. With relatively few refugees from Palestine, Transjordan entered to the late 1950s
rather stable.

Saudi-Arabia:
The Saudis were not too keen to support the formation of METO, but the rising support of Baathism in the Middle-East ultimately swayed them to join to the alliance as well. Otherwise things continued in their old course: Royal family kept getting richer and the oil industry expanded due foreign investments.

Iran:
Since United States and Britain were not willing to make the occupation of northern Iran a key question in their relations with Soviet Union, Tehran was forced to accept that it´s chances to effectively control Iranian Azerbaijan, Iranian Kurdistan and the provinces of Gilan, Mazandaran, and Khorasan were practically gone. PM Mosaddeq took much flak for his inability to prevent this development, but after securing an agreement with the British he counted on to the rising oil revenues and invested them to social reforms to maintain his precarious position.

Irak:
Arab Hashemite Union between Transjordan and Iraq was something both Abdullah I and King Faisal I would have liked to see - the only thing they disagreed was who would sit on the throne. Thus negotiations of this political continuation of METO went on without any real progress during the late 1950s, while the internal problems of Iraq kept getting worse. PM Nuri As-Said met these problems with good, trustworthly method of increasing the oppression of his political opponents. He also privately discussed about the possibility to stage a coup in the Emirate of Kuwait, with hopes of annexing it to Iraq.

Meanwhile the crowds in the streets of Baghdad shouted “Nasser, we are your soldiers,” and denounced Faisal as a traitor, and the Free Officers in the Royal Iraqi Army continued their secret meetings, knowing that the METO protocol would urge them to be extremely cautious in their actions. Iraqi Communist Party was also trying to reorganize it´s ranks after the extensive repression campaign that had paralyzed it during the war, while Rashid Ali al-Gaylani and his closest aides from the Golden Square-government had moved to Syria and sought to organize a network of royal supporters within Iraq.

Soviet Union
New status as a nuclear power and autonomous People´s Republics of Azerbaijan and Kurdistan were fundamental new tools in the postwar Soviet foreign policy in the Middle-East. Soviet leadership did not want to be left out from the global decisions, and correctly saw Middle-East as an ideal area where West and New Europe were bitterly fighting one another, creating new room and support for Communist movements. This activity had many results, as future would show.

Territory of the APR Kurdistan had a huge symbolic value for millions of Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iraq.

 

[unmerged(44312)]

A very intresting update on the Middle East! With all sorts of different factions still retaining their power, the region is still a powder keg or to be more precise a secret battleground between the West, New Europe and the Soviets - which should make very intresting covert scenarios!

I like to think that this time the Palestinian could as well be the democratic force in the region, imagine Arafat as a Pro-democratic, pro-US politician! A more richer, freer and highly educated Palestine will surely be a powerfull symbol in the region!

 

[Faeelin]

Aftermatch of the Middle-Eastern War
The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labour of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth. Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

Yay!

*Part of "The High Cost of Peace"-speech held by President MacArthur on December 1953.[/FONT]

Hrmm. Evidengly Doug became a bit more, well, morally cognizant? in this world.

The Jewish minority was estimated to be too small and vulnerable to hold out in their own separate state, while political specialists of Middle-East knew well how much outrage such a solution would stir up in the Arab world that was allready in turmoil due the Middle-Eastern War. [/qoute]

Hrmm. Just out curiosity, there are no Jews here from, umm, Neuropa, right?

Palestine was becoming much like it´s northern neighbour Lebanon - internally divided but still somewhat functioning state, where the UN (US Army)-enforced status quo kept the situation in control.[/SIZE]

.... One hopes it will have a better fate in the long run.

New status as a nuclear power and autonomous People´s Republics of Azerbaijan and Kurdistan were fundamental new tools in the postwar Soviet foreign policy in the Middle-East. Soviet leadership did not want to be left out from the global decisions, and correctly saw Middle-East as an ideal area where West and New Europe were bitterly fighting one another, creating new room and support for Communist movements.

Hrmm. I just realized Europe doesn't really have any oil.

Edit: My mistake. I was confused by Azerbaijan, for a moment.

Fascinating, as always; I would have commented more but I don't know anything else about the topic.

 

[Karelian]

Yay!
Hrmm. Evidengly Doug became a bit more, well, morally cognizant? in this world.

Perhaps it is the combined effect of actually leading the nation (and choosing the right speechwriters) combined with his late-years "It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh"-styled speeches. And putting rhetorics aside he was still willing to risk nuclear escalation by pushing forward in Syria.

Hrmm. Just out curiosity, there are no Jews here from, umm, Neuropa, right?

No, at least not in such numbers that would alter population statistics.

.... One hopes it will have a better fate in the long run.

Well, when compared to the time when the SS-trained jihadis occupied everything north from Safad things have definitively improved somewhat... With it´s democratic government and good living standards Palestine is doing a lot better than many other parts of the Middle-East.

Hrmm. I just realized Europe doesn't really have any oil. Edit: My mistake. I was confused by Azerbaijan, for a moment.

Don´t forget Ploesti and North Sea, allthough the latter reserves are still naturally quite inaccessible. But yes, the situation with fertilizers and alternative car fuels starts to make more sense, doesn´t it? Especially in the 1950s when the Soviet partisans are still making sure that trying to construct new pipelines from Baku towards West (and keeping them operational) is rather difficult.