Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352 
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Feb 11, 2020 18:22:26 GMT
'USSR Invades Poland First', followed by Nazi Germany attacking it from its western flank, rather than the other way around like IOTL.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,007
Likes: 49,410
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 11, 2020 18:38:34 GMT
'USSR Invades Poland First', followed by Nazi Germany attacking it from its western flank, rather than the other way around like IOTL. I still think Germany will be the one that gets France and the United Kingdom on its neck instead of the Soviet Union, but could be wrong. |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Feb 11, 2020 18:42:34 GMT
'USSR Invades Poland First', followed by Nazi Germany attacking it from its western flank, rather than the other way around like IOTL. I still think Germany will be the one that gets France and the United Kingdom on its neck instead of the Soviet Union, but could be wrong. Well, I do get the impression that Germany seemed like the more imminent threat at the time. That said, I think that neither Britain nor France would harbor much trust or good will towards Stalinist Russia, because communism and lack of human rights. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,007
Likes: 49,410
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 11, 2020 18:59:24 GMT
I still think Germany will be the one that gets France and the United Kingdom on its neck instead of the Soviet Union, but could be wrong. Well, I do get the impression that Germany seemed like the more imminent threat at the time. That said, I think that neither Britain nor France would harbor much trust or good will towards Stalinist Russia, because communism and lack of human rights. Maybe this still applies even with the Soviet Union being the first to invade Poland: Why did Britain and France not declare war on the Soviet Union when the Red Army marched on Poland in September 1939? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,229
|
Post by stevep on Feb 12, 2020 15:47:34 GMT
'USSR Invades Poland First', followed by Nazi Germany attacking it from its western flank, rather than the other way around like IOTL.
Is the Nazi-Soviet pact to divide up much of eastern Europe still in place? If it is then probably things going much as OTL although if the Poles detect the Russian build up 1st they could have a lot more forces fighting the Soviets and hence less fighting the Germans. If it isn't then there is probably a decent chance of the two powers clashing over the areas they occupy which might build into a full scale war. In which case Nazi Germany is screwed as no resources from Stalin and their fighting [presumably] the western powers as well. However will make for complex relations between the west and the Soviets as their likely to be co-belligerents against Hitler rather than allies.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Feb 14, 2020 19:31:52 GMT
'USSR Invades Poland First', followed by Nazi Germany attacking it from its western flank, rather than the other way around like IOTL.
Is the Nazi-Soviet pact to divide up much of eastern Europe still in place? If it is then probably things going much as OTL although if the Poles detect the Russian build up 1st they could have a lot more forces fighting the Soviets and hence less fighting the Germans. If it isn't then there is probably a decent chance of the two powers clashing over the areas they occupy which might build into a full scale war. In which case Nazi Germany is screwed as no resources from Stalin and their fighting [presumably] the western powers as well. However will make for complex relations between the west and the Soviets as their likely to be co-belligerents against Hitler rather than allies.
Good question. I was originally thinking of retaining the original non-aggression pact leading up to the PoD in question, though butterflying that agreement would have larger and more interesting ramifications, I think. Also, while I'm aware of Soviet Russia supplying Nazi Germany with grain, raw materials, construction fare and other munitions important to building up the Reich's economy and sustaining its war effort abroad, I'm also unsure how well-trained and well-equipped the Red Army was compared to the Wehrmacht at this time. My understanding being that the Soviet military was largely inexperienced and at mainly peacetime strength prior to Operation Barbarossa, maybe the resulting German-Soviet bloodbath wouldn't be as one-sided in the initial stages? At least, until the USSR adapts and bridges the gap with new tanks, artillery, and the ironclad ruthlessness of Comrade Stalin "encouraging" the sons of Mother Russia to fight to the last man, cowardice be damned? In that case, I'm guessing that the Soviets won't have to transfer as many factories to the Urals as was true IOTL, due to the fact that Nazi Germany's not the only aggressor ITTL. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,229
|
Post by stevep on Feb 15, 2020 15:22:41 GMT
Is the Nazi-Soviet pact to divide up much of eastern Europe still in place? If it is then probably things going much as OTL although if the Poles detect the Russian build up 1st they could have a lot more forces fighting the Soviets and hence less fighting the Germans. If it isn't then there is probably a decent chance of the two powers clashing over the areas they occupy which might build into a full scale war. In which case Nazi Germany is screwed as no resources from Stalin and their fighting [presumably] the western powers as well. However will make for complex relations between the west and the Soviets as their likely to be co-belligerents against Hitler rather than allies.
Good question. I was originally thinking of retaining the original non-aggression pact leading up to the PoD in question, though butterflying that agreement would have larger and more interesting ramifications, I think. Also, while I'm aware of Soviet Russia supplying Nazi Germany with grain, raw materials, construction fare and other munitions important to building up the Reich's economy and sustaining its war effort abroad, I'm also unsure how well-trained and well-equipped the Red Army was compared to the Wehrmacht at this time. My understanding being that the Soviet military was largely inexperienced and at mainly peacetime strength prior to Operation Barbarossa, maybe the resulting German-Soviet bloodbath wouldn't be as one-sided in the initial stages? At least, until the USSR adapts and bridges the gap with new tanks, artillery, and the ironclad ruthlessness of Comrade Stalin "encouraging" the sons of Mother Russia to fight to the last man, cowardice be damned? In that case, I'm guessing that the Soviets won't have to transfer as many factories to the Urals as was true IOTL, due to the fact that Nazi Germany's not the only aggressor ITTL.
Yes the Soviet army was still a mess and wasn't getting that much better any time soon without a real shock but then the Germans were unhappy with the performance of many of their forces in Poland. Remember that since they had been forbidden both conscription and much heavy equipment until only a few years before the bulk of the forces were very green.
Hence if it became a three way war in autumn 39 while the Germans would have a definite skill advantage they would have had serious problems. At this time not only have they virtually stripped their western front to launch the attack, which means if their fighting the Soviets in the east they have little to reinforce the western front when the allies finally attack. Also without loot from France and the Low Countries the Germans have considerably less resources. Coupled with the loss of resources traded with the Soviets Nazi Germany is going to suffer a serious resource crunch very quickly even without the need to replace men and equipment lost in the continuous fighting.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Feb 16, 2020 21:13:59 GMT
‘More Liberal Tsar Nicholas II’.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,229
|
Post by stevep on Feb 17, 2020 14:10:49 GMT
‘More Liberal Tsar Nicholas II’.
Depending on more powerful and also whether he's any more intelligent and a better judge of people. However very likely the dynasty survives, at least during his life time and quite probably WWI is a bit shorter as say Germany is forced to quit in 1917. Could have some huge butterflies from this. Also on how much more liberal as he could still be very conservative compared to western Europe.
There are possibilities that things still go to hell. For one thing he was far from the only reactionary in the leadership - most definitely including his wife so possible a POD would be a different marriage, which might also butterfly the hemophilia that his OTL son had. This would not only make the succession more secure but also hopefully prevent Rasputin getting any influence. Even so a lot of the aristocracy and other embedded influences would seek to minimise any political or social reform so there could be problems there, including possibly attempts to remove him by one means or another. Plus no matter how liberal he was there will be extremist left wing elements who will seek to remove the dynasty.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Feb 19, 2020 0:41:12 GMT
‘How Long Could We Have Delayed WW2?’. My impression is that even at the most generous, WW1 would've still occurred not too long after 1914 IOTL due to ultra-high tensions that were this close to finally boiling over. But what about its younger, but ultimately bigger brother that overshadowed it twenty to thirty-something years later?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,229
|
Post by stevep on Feb 19, 2020 13:58:00 GMT
‘How Long Could We Have Delayed WW2?’. My impression is that even at the most generous, WW1 would've still occurred not too long after 1914 IOTL due to ultra-high tensions that were this close to finally boiling over. But what about its younger, but ultimately bigger brother that overshadowed it twenty to thirty-something years later?
Well with minor political differences you might have seen France, probably supported at least politically by Britain and Belgium, possibly Poland as well, step in when Germany marched back into the Rhineland. At the very least forcing the Nazis to step down on this would be a huge loss of face for them and if the Rhineland is left undefended Germany has very little chance of any moves on say Austria or the Czechs. Quite possibly it might prompt a coup removing the Nazis. Your still going to have strong revanchist feelings in Germany but that could at least push the matter back say 5-10 years minimum, by which time a hell of a lot could have changed. Including probably a Pacific war that sees Japan defeated and a nationalist, rather than Communist China. The west is however likely to be distinctly more conservative and racists without WWII, possibly even more so in the aftermath of a war with Japan so in many ways it could be a lot less pleasant in western Europe and the US and the colonial situation could be a lot bloodier. Also what happens eventually with Germany and with the Soviet Union would be difficult to tell.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,007
Likes: 49,410
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 19, 2020 14:07:45 GMT
‘How Long Could We Have Delayed WW2?’. My impression is that even at the most generous, WW1 would've still occurred not too long after 1914 IOTL due to ultra-high tensions that were this close to finally boiling over. But what about its younger, but ultimately bigger brother that overshadowed it twenty to thirty-something years later? Well with minor political differences you might have seen France, probably supported at least politically by Britain and Belgium, possibly Poland as well, step in when Germany marched back into the Rhineland. At the very least forcing the Nazis to step down on this would be a huge loss of face for them and if the Rhineland is left undefended Germany has very little chance of any moves on say Austria or the Czechs. Quite possibly it might prompt a coup removing the Nazis. Your still going to have strong revanchist feelings in Germany but that could at least push the matter back say 5-10 years minimum, by which time a hell of a lot could have changed. Including probably a Pacific war that sees Japan defeated and a nationalist, rather than Communist China. The west is however likely to be distinctly more conservative and racists without WWII, possibly even more so in the aftermath of a war with Japan so in many ways it could be a lot less pleasant in western Europe and the US and the colonial situation could be a lot bloodier. Also what happens eventually with Germany and with the Soviet Union would be difficult to tell.
I always understood Germany needed the war to survive, if not it would go bankrupt, ore am i wrong. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,229
|
Post by stevep on Feb 19, 2020 16:23:27 GMT
Well with minor political differences you might have seen France, probably supported at least politically by Britain and Belgium, possibly Poland as well, step in when Germany marched back into the Rhineland. At the very least forcing the Nazis to step down on this would be a huge loss of face for them and if the Rhineland is left undefended Germany has very little chance of any moves on say Austria or the Czechs. Quite possibly it might prompt a coup removing the Nazis. Your still going to have strong revanchist feelings in Germany but that could at least push the matter back say 5-10 years minimum, by which time a hell of a lot could have changed. Including probably a Pacific war that sees Japan defeated and a nationalist, rather than Communist China. The west is however likely to be distinctly more conservative and racists without WWII, possibly even more so in the aftermath of a war with Japan so in many ways it could be a lot less pleasant in western Europe and the US and the colonial situation could be a lot bloodier. Also what happens eventually with Germany and with the Soviet Union would be difficult to tell.
I always understood Germany needed the war to survive, if not it would go bankrupt, ore am i wrong.
If they don't get the conquests to loot and/or the pact with the Soviets, then the German economy is basically running on empty very quickly so something where say the allies stand up to Hitler on say Czechoslovakia and he's forced to back down then that could be another way of bringing the Nazis down.
Although of course this or another way of prompting a military coup, let alone an actual western invasion, to depose what was still an elected and fairly popular government could just push the problem further along the road. Especially since it would stoke up resentment in Germany and the sort of 'anti-war' feeling that tends to occur in those who want to avoid conflict at all costs. The same misguided fools who were marching against the bomb in the 1950's and 60's OTL might here be complaining about such actions in the 30's, especially at a point when Germany might be rearming again under another revanchist regime.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,007
Likes: 49,410
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 19, 2020 16:28:25 GMT
I always understood Germany needed the war to survive, if not it would go bankrupt, ore am i wrong. If they don't get the conquests to loot and/or the pact with the Soviets, then the German economy is basically running on empty very quickly so something where say the allies stand up to Hitler on say Czechoslovakia and he's forced to back down then that could be another way of bringing the Nazis down. Although of course this or another way of prompting a military coup, let alone an actual western invasion, to depose what was still an elected and fairly popular government could just push the problem further along the road. Especially since it would stoke up resentment in Germany and the sort of 'anti-war' feeling that tends to occur in those who want to avoid conflict at all costs. The same misguided fools who were marching against the bomb in the 1950's and 60's OTL might here be complaining about such actions in the 30's, especially at a point when Germany might be rearming again under another revanchist regime.
So 1941 to 1942 is the max for Germany, any longer and even the Soviet Union will be a tough nut to crack for Germany, not even mentioning other minor countries who get one to 2 years extra to re-arm themselves. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,229
|
Post by stevep on Feb 19, 2020 16:43:02 GMT
If they don't get the conquests to loot and/or the pact with the Soviets, then the German economy is basically running on empty very quickly so something where say the allies stand up to Hitler on say Czechoslovakia and he's forced to back down then that could be another way of bringing the Nazis down. Although of course this or another way of prompting a military coup, let alone an actual western invasion, to depose what was still an elected and fairly popular government could just push the problem further along the road. Especially since it would stoke up resentment in Germany and the sort of 'anti-war' feeling that tends to occur in those who want to avoid conflict at all costs. The same misguided fools who were marching against the bomb in the 1950's and 60's OTL might here be complaining about such actions in the 30's, especially at a point when Germany might be rearming again under another revanchist regime.
So 1941 to 1942 is the max for Germany, any longer and even the Soviet Union will be a tough nut to crack for Germany, not even mentioning other minor countries who get one to 2 years extra to re-arm themselves.
Well if they don't get the gold and industrial resources of Bohemia then they would probably see serious economic problems some time before then. I think I read that the gold reserves they seized when they occupied Austria was another factor that stopped them collapsing possibly even before that.
|
|
