Mussolini the man will be forever debated ITTL, but like him or not, you cannot say he did not leave an impact, and that Is his legacy
A Footprint if you will.
Hell with how much he's shaped the modern world here I would not be surprised if Musso became TTL's Person of the Century.
Forget what I wrote about Iraq. Sorairo already explained that happened during the aftermath of the Second Arabian War.
I doubt the Syrian Social Nationalists would even become a thing, Israel would nuke them.
Turkey agreed to some level of democratic reform, with President Evren going on to win the 1981 election that re-established Turkish democracy. But at the same time, the military would be so thoroughly baked into the country’s government, its funding constitutionally assured to the extent that to even openly call for its removal would declare the party ineligible for government, that it would turn Turkey from a state with an army to an army with a state. Turkey remains by far the most militarised of any of the initial Roman Alliance states. Such was seen in Iraq, where Turkey adamantly refused to end the occupation of Syria despite even Israel pledging that they would incur no more punishment on the region. The Turkish occupation of Syria would finally end in 2002 for economic reasons far more so than military. This hasn’t stopped occasional re-occupation whenever Turkey feels like Syria hasn’t lived up to its side of the bargain. Their close ally Iran, close owing to their mutual fear of an Arab revival, would be somewhat kinder to Iraq and the Arabian Kingdom.
Parliament would have two major Blocs, ‘The Rhodesian Bloc’ (which de-facto represented Whites) and ‘The Zimbabwean Bloc’ (which de facto represented Blacks). At the same time, political parties were not required to join these groups – certain political parties refuse to sit in either Bloc today on the basis of being cross-community parties. Certain resolutions had to receive cross-community support, or the support of a minimum number of MPs from both communities, to be passed by Parliament. The election of the Speaker, approval of ministers, any changes to Parliamentary proceeding and the vote on certain budgets all needed cross-community support. Any vote taken by Parliament could have been forced to need cross-community support if a large enough petition was sent to the Speaker. If enough MPs thought it was discriminatory, a vote on proposed legislation would only pass if supported by a weighted majority of three-fifths of MPs voting, including at least 40% of each of the Rhodesia and Zimbabwe Blocs. This meant that if enough MPs from one Bloc could agree, the Bloc they could exercise a veto over the Parliament. For good measure, the country would change its name from ‘Rhodesia’ to ‘Rhodesia-Zimbabwe’. Of course, even today, most Whites in the country simply refer to their homeland as ‘Rhodesia’ while Blacks call it ‘Zimbabwe’ – the name is mostly used in diplomatic and official capacity. Often the term is colloquially shortened to ‘Rhobabwe’.
Abit overkill.Fall falll falll fall and burn you bastards ans go to hell where you belong.
What's the status of mixed race folk here? Would they count for either or neither? And would this either-neither deal only be applicable for the 50-50 mixed ones or would there be something like a 7/8ths 'pure' is effectively white/black? Once race-related stuff gets written into law, issues with demarcation lines vis-a-vis the mixed race populace, however small, will become an issue.