In the years immediately following the end of the Second World War, communist and other leftist parties enjoyed some of their highest levels of support. What would have happened if either of or both France and Italy went communist or elected communist/leftist governments? Would the United States overthrow them? Would they even last long electorally? How would they interact with the Soviet Union? What are some plausible PODs for making either nation communist?
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Communist France and Italy post-WW2?
- Thread starter Bomster
- Start date
Ricardolindo
Well-known member
- Location
- Portugal
In the years immediately following the end of the Second World War, communist and other leftist parties enjoyed some of their highest levels of support. What would have happened if either of or both France and Italy went communist or elected communist/leftist governments? Would the United States overthrow them? Would they even last long electorally? How would they interact with the Soviet Union? What are some plausible PODs for making either nation communist?
A purely communist government is impossible. Neither in France nor in Italy, were the communists ever close to a majority in Parliament. The communists did participate in French governments, though.
ChrisNuttall
Well-known member
They would have to have had a great deal more success than OTL. It's possible the Free French wound up being led by someone less ... assertive than DeGaulle, which would have made them seem more like puppets of the UK and US (a charge that did get levelled a few times, IIRC) and the French Communists, after Barbarossa, started taking on the mantle of resistance to the Nazis. If the new governments were seen as less independent and less capable of standing up for French interests, a third force might have a chance.
This does raise the obvious question - if the Free French are beholden to the West, why should we overlook the French Communists being beholden to Moscow? The French Communists might try to claim they were independent and treat Moscow as an advisor, rather than a superior; how well this would go, in the post-WW2 world, is hard to say. It took a few years for the Cold War to get going and feelings about Moscow were quite mixed (still are). The French Communists might be quietly relieved there was a barrier between them and Moscow, in the form of a US/UK/USSR occupied Germany. However, they would be under immense pressure to deny transit rights and suchlike and there would be no way they could be relied upon if WW3 broke out.
Chris
This does raise the obvious question - if the Free French are beholden to the West, why should we overlook the French Communists being beholden to Moscow? The French Communists might try to claim they were independent and treat Moscow as an advisor, rather than a superior; how well this would go, in the post-WW2 world, is hard to say. It took a few years for the Cold War to get going and feelings about Moscow were quite mixed (still are). The French Communists might be quietly relieved there was a barrier between them and Moscow, in the form of a US/UK/USSR occupied Germany. However, they would be under immense pressure to deny transit rights and suchlike and there would be no way they could be relied upon if WW3 broke out.
Chris
They would have to have had a great deal more success than OTL. It's possible the Free French wound up being led by someone less ... assertive than DeGaulle, which would have made them seem more like puppets of the UK and US (a charge that did get levelled a few times, IIRC) and the French Communists, after Barbarossa, started taking on the mantle of resistance to the Nazis. If the new governments were seen as less independent and less capable of standing up for French interests, a third force might have a chance.
This does raise the obvious question - if the Free French are beholden to the West, why should we overlook the French Communists being beholden to Moscow? The French Communists might try to claim they were independent and treat Moscow as an advisor, rather than a superior; how well this would go, in the post-WW2 world, is hard to say. It took a few years for the Cold War to get going and feelings about Moscow were quite mixed (still are). The French Communists might be quietly relieved there was a barrier between them and Moscow, in the form of a US/UK/USSR occupied Germany. However, they would be under immense pressure to deny transit rights and suchlike and there would be no way they could be relied upon if WW3 broke out.
Chris
The dual loyalties stuff didn't initially hurt the Communists that much. It only really became a problem with the soviet repression in Hungary, at which point they became entirely unacceptable as coalition partners.
If the left can solidify its position before that, they may be able to weather the storm better. Or simply have an entirely different cold war setup butterflying that specific case of awfulness.
I think the easiest divergence is a win in this referendum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1946_French_constitutional_referendum
OTL the Communists and Socialists refused to campaign together despite this constitution being their coalition's baby and it failed fairly narrowly. If it won, it would both give a constitutional setup favourable to them and a great deal of momentum in the elections for the new assembly.
Alternatively, a pod I've been considering is a different, more messy liberation which discredits the western allies. Something like a refusal to relieve the Paris uprising (as was initially the plan before De Gaulle convinced them) leading to a bloodbath the resistance can blame on the allies, maybe?
Italy borders Yugoslavia while France would be surrounded by capitalist nations, so they're going to have very different experiences as communist nations.
Now in French specifics, I've got a copy of Beevor's Paris and the US view on a communist threat in France - some of their bods thought it was Inevitable - comes up a bit. Brief look via index, there's this:
* Spring 1946, the US is very worried about rumours of communist plots while various right-wingers were sniffing around hoping for aid to 'stop the communists'. One claim they had was the Russians planned to invaded with paratroopers, another that communists planned to start a border incident with Spain to kick everything off. (MI6 meanwhile has Kim Philby rubbishing actual intelligence on French communists) The American ambassador thought these rumours were bollocks, US military intelligence mostly did not but their intelligence was a mess.
* US military intelligence thought a communist coup was coming in the runup to the May constitutional referendum, or the day after (where the communists were backing one side). So the War Department drafted a plan of what to do, which was:
* General MacNarney, Commanding General of US Forces European Theatre, was to "effect movement" into France if he thought it was "essential to provide security" for US troops or their supplies.
* The State Department went "what the fuck is this shit" when they saw the telegram, but Truman backed the War Department. The order remained in effect even after the 6th May.
So depending on how a French communist government comes about or when, America could send in troops to assist any military resistance and some dodgy parties.
Now in French specifics, I've got a copy of Beevor's Paris and the US view on a communist threat in France - some of their bods thought it was Inevitable - comes up a bit. Brief look via index, there's this:
* Spring 1946, the US is very worried about rumours of communist plots while various right-wingers were sniffing around hoping for aid to 'stop the communists'. One claim they had was the Russians planned to invaded with paratroopers, another that communists planned to start a border incident with Spain to kick everything off. (MI6 meanwhile has Kim Philby rubbishing actual intelligence on French communists) The American ambassador thought these rumours were bollocks, US military intelligence mostly did not but their intelligence was a mess.
* US military intelligence thought a communist coup was coming in the runup to the May constitutional referendum, or the day after (where the communists were backing one side). So the War Department drafted a plan of what to do, which was:
* General MacNarney, Commanding General of US Forces European Theatre, was to "effect movement" into France if he thought it was "essential to provide security" for US troops or their supplies.
* The State Department went "what the fuck is this shit" when they saw the telegram, but Truman backed the War Department. The order remained in effect even after the 6th May.
So depending on how a French communist government comes about or when, America could send in troops to assist any military resistance and some dodgy parties.