oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Oct 8, 2021 16:45:06 GMT
I was watching this youtube videos and would really appreciate what you folks think of this Alternate Timeline
for the Cold war ? I have seen quite a few videos on the subject of a nazi "Victory" but these seem more plausible to me than most.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966 
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 8, 2021 17:15:59 GMT
I was watching this youtube videos and would really appreciate what you folks think of this Alternate Timeline
for the Cold war ? I have seen quite a few videos on the subject of a nazi "Victory" but these seem more plausible to me than most.
Nice find Senior Chief, a lot of things there i need to go true. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Oct 8, 2021 18:28:21 GMT
I was watching this youtube videos and would really appreciate what you folks think of this Alternate Timeline
for the Cold war ? I have seen quite a few videos on the subject of a nazi "Victory" but these seem more plausible to me than most.
Watched the 1st video but uncertain as to a number of the points. Assuming that the war in the Far East is delayed by a year - since they have the Pearl attack on 7-12-42, I could see Japan being invaded but possibly finally being nuked although the amounts mentioned in the film are excessive. It only took 2 OTL and that was without a chunk of the country occupied and probably Japan in a markedly weaker position elsewhere.
Also what is the bases for a lower level of L-L? Yes it will drop for a while as OTL due to the US giving its own forces priority. However without a major US involvement in Europe there will be a hell of a lot more resources available for the allies and Soviets. Not to mention that assuming the US Neutrality zone stays there's no 2nd Happy Time for the U boats which would safe a huge amount of allied shipping and other resources. Under those circumstances I can see Torch still going ahead even if some equivalent of Montgomery's offensive in Libya doesn't occur.
Assuming no Soviet collapse in 1941/42 then I can't really see Germany lasting until 1946 let alone still holding substantial areas of the former SU. Soviet losses will be markedly larger but also will be German losses, far more than the 1M dead soldiers mentioned in the video. They can pull more slave workers out of the east but that can only help the 'home' front for so long.
If somehow Germany did last until 46 then I suspect that Britain would be forced to make peace assuming that the V weapons are developed as OTL. We can deal with the V1's but not the V2's unless something special comes up.
Is there a joint allied nuclear programme or separate ones? If the former then the UK can take care of the Nazis if the US isn't totally stupid as it can nuke key targets. If not then the US programme will be delayed but by how much I wouldn't be sure. Could well be until later than the mentioned surrender of Japan and ending of war in the Far East/Pacific. Britain's own programme is also going to be greatly delayed and the Soviets may be the 2nd with the bomb, with Britain and Germany racing for 3rd.
I'm doubtful about Mao winning in China in this scenario? Far more so about Britain co-operating with Germany and Italy in a war in Iran. Can see the Axis doing this but even if Hitler last's that long I can't see Germany seeking to fight the Vietnamese war as its simply too far away and too unimportant to them.
Plus if there is a continuation of Nazi policies the state is likely to collapse probably by some time in the 1950's if not before. Even if still able to continue looting its eastern 'colonies' its not going to have those in the west and the sheer insanity of Nazi policies on things like the level of militarisation and the destruction of responsible education in favour of racial 'theories'. At the very least its going to be increasingly crippled and backwards compared to its opponents.
Its a lot better than many other Nazis survive/win scenarios but there are still a number of problems with the idea. Will have a look at the 2nd video but wanted to get this done 1st.
|
|
belushitd
Warrant Officer
Posts: 205
Likes: 258
|
Post by belushitd on Oct 8, 2021 18:31:00 GMT
I've never understood why people think Japan would have been able to split the globe with Germany. Germany had much more warmaking capacity, and once the Russians had gone under, it would have been a race to see who was able to take more of east of the Urals. My guess is that Germany, with its panzers, their ability to repair railroads (crappy as it was compared to the allies, it still was almost infinitely better than that of the Japanese) would have been able to take most of Siberia, compared to the Japanese having to move north. I expect the Japanese would have ended up with a wedge of Siberia, from the easternmost corner of Mongolia to the Pacific, while the Germans would have ended up with pretty much all the rest of it. Germans would probably have insisted on half of India, as well. And howinthehell would the Japanese have managed to take Central and South America? I strongly suspect the South Americans would have fought that tooth and nail. The Japanese just didn't have the sealift capacity to do this in any sort of reasonable timeframe. The Germans would have had access to the shipping of Europe to move troops across the atlantic as well. Anyway... Its all pointless speculation, as the axis was screwed from the get go. Here's a link to an analysis that is far from professional, but touches on the major points as to why the axis and, in particular, Japan were screwed. www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm Belushi TD |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 8, 2021 18:36:15 GMT
I've never understood why people think Japan would have been able to split the globe with Germany. Germany had much more warmaking capacity, and once the Russians had gone under, it would have been a race to see who was able to take more of east of the Urals. My guess is that Germany, with its panzers, their ability to repair railroads (crappy as it was compared to the allies, it still was almost infinitely better than that of the Japanese) would have been able to take most of Siberia, compared to the Japanese having to move north. I expect the Japanese would have ended up with a wedge of Siberia, from the easternmost corner of Mongolia to the Pacific, while the Germans would have ended up with pretty much all the rest of it. Germans would probably have insisted on half of India, as well. And howinthehell would the Japanese have managed to take Central and South America? I strongly suspect the South Americans would have fought that tooth and nail. The Japanese just didn't have the sealift capacity to do this in any sort of reasonable timeframe. The Germans would have had access to the shipping of Europe to move troops across the atlantic as well. Anyway... Its all pointless speculation, as the axis was screwed from the get go. Here's a link to an analysis that is far from professional, but touches on the major points as to why the axis and, in particular, Japan were screwed. www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm Belushi TD The best thing Hitler could have done to buy Germany some time was not to declare war against the United States. |
|
belushitd
Warrant Officer
Posts: 205
Likes: 258
|
Post by belushitd on Oct 8, 2021 18:52:02 GMT
Or, you know, know when to stop gambling, and once England and France declared war on September 3rd, go to them, hat in hand, and say "I didn't actually think you meant it. We're pulling out of Poland, except for the Danzig corridor. Can we use that as a basis for peace?"
Of course, then Germany'd be in a lot of trouble economically, as they were just about out of foreign currency to pay for their imports and would have had to figure out how to exist in a world with a lot of it arrayed against them.
Belushi TD
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 8, 2021 18:57:48 GMT
Of course, then Germany'd be in a lot of trouble economically, as they were just about out of foreign currency to pay for their imports and would have had to figure out how to exist in a world with a lot of it arrayed against them. Belushi TD True without the conquest of other countries to fuel its economy Germany is in trouble, it can only squeeze so much out its own economy before it becomes bankrupt. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Oct 8, 2021 20:10:53 GMT
Well looked at the 2nd video and again have some serious doubts. He starts off saying there's no way Germany and Japan could win a decisive victory then has them do exactly that!
I can see the 1st steps with the Germans possibly mopping up the BEF at Dunkirk, although there were questions on the condition of the German armour at that time and this would prevent it having a pause to regroup prior to the attack on the rest of France. Also can see them taking Malta as it was virtually undefended at this point.
However a lot more doubtful about the suggested successes in N Africa and the ME. The logistics simply aren't there for substantial forces to operate in an invasion of Egypt, or at least the Nile valley. Even with very limited forces Britain can hold at El Alamein with a very good chance of success. What would be more dangerous would be a bigger U boat campaign from the start. Note that as I've said before albeit possibly not here losing Malta might not be a great loss to Britain given the resources required and losses substantiated defending and supplying it. Ditto with the suggestion that the Italians can mark across several hundred miles of desert to overrun Sudan. They have large forces in Italian E Africa but their mainly poorly equipped local militia who rely on marching so are going to need a lot of supplies while their trying to get to Khartoum. Kenya might actually be a bit simpler because the terrain isn't as difficult but again how far the Italian can supply their forces would be a serious issue. Virtually all of the supplies for the ME command came via the Cape anyway once Italy entered the war.
If somehow the Axis did manage to make all those conquests then, short of a US dow in support of the allies I can't see Britain not making peace and salvaging what they can. Churchill would probably fall but Britain would definitely be committed to an armed peace because of the threat from Germany.
In terms of 1941 the Germans couldn't start the invasion of Russia much earlier because of the weather. If they don't get drawn into a war in Greece they will have a bit more forces and some less wear and tear on the units that did go south but not sure how big a difference that would make. I suspect that if Italy still attacked Greece their likely to win but not as easily as assumed even with Bulgarian support. Its likely that Britain wouldn't intervene here however given the threat to Egypt. Can't see Yugoslavia having its coup in TTL as its position is simply too desperate. Possibly the biggest butterfly about 1941 however is if either the Germans have reached Persia or Britain has made peace, let alone both Stalin is going to know the blow is coming. As such there will be more preparations for an attack albeit it probably won't be very efficient.
In terms of an attack straight for Moscow in August/September the issues are: a) Can the Germans do this without the OTL pause for some of their armoured unites especially to be rested and rail lines and other logistical links extended? b) What happens with the exposed flank this would cause if the massive Soviet forces in the Ukraine weren't destroyed? Even an attack with limited and temporary territorial gains could serious disrupt German advances on Moscow.
Also even if Hitler encourages a Japan attack on Siberia and gives details of his plans will the Japanese support this? As well as the mauling they got from the Soviets they, in the aftermath of the German pact with the Soviets made their own non-aggression pact. More importantly the lands they want are those in the south with the raw materials that they will need, especially if the US has organised an embargo as OTL. One key question is is Britain still in the war. If it is then Japan isn't getting any oil or other supplies from a German controlled ME since they can't sail through the British controlled Indian Ocean, which will have a substantial RN force if there's no Med fleet to maintain. If it isn't then there's the possibility of getting oil from Germany, although rubber, tin, steel etc could be another matter and Britain will be deploying land and air as well as naval units to defend its important commercial interests in the area. In that case Japan could well decide to go north with the possibility of going south later on.
A Japanese attack on Russia would probably be most important in that it would cut L-L via Vladivostok, assuming L-L comes into existence here. [It probably won't if Britain has made peace because such military and economical aid to the Soviets would be a huge ask for an isolationist US without the example of it having happened to Britain and the democratic powers in exile.] The Soviets can probably hold fairly easily once their forced back from the coast because Japan is already heavily committed in China so won't have a lot of men free and also again logistics.
As such: a) If somehow the Axis gain control of the ME then I see Britain making peace early in 1941 say and losing most of the ME and the Soviets isolated and gradually worn down with organized resistance probably ending in 43-44-45 period. Japan could well take part in this but are going to be strained fighting to any degree in Siberia as well as China. [One complication in the latter is whether Japan can stop substantial aid reaching China from the US? If there a peace settlement in Europe then Vichy France may have only limited control over FIC but Burma is going to stay under British control. Britain might well have a Labour government after the failure of the Tories in both peace [during the depression] and war or a reformist Tory government responding to both the drastically changed circumstances and the great threat from fascism dominating the continent. Does Japan then after the ending of its role in Siberia try invading the southern resource centre and if so does Germany support them?
b) If which I think more likely the Axis are stopped at El Alamein say Britain stays in the war but is forced into a more defensive role then we're sent for a long war, assuming that the US continues to supply L-L when their drained British funds. We can hold Egypt and gradually wear down the isolated Italian forces in E Africa but faced with a more powerful Axis force in the western desert its likely this would be a purely defensive role for Britain for quite a while. A lot would depend on what happens in the Atlantic and also Russia of course. With Britain at war tying up some Axis forces and also L-L arriving, at least unless Japan also attacks Russia is either going to hold, if only in a position similar to the 1st video or fall but later and with further losses for both sides in a bloodbath in eastern Europe.
If Japan attacks the Soviets here then what can they spare to fight Britain as the latter is very likely to declare war once its position in Egypt is secure. With some Indian and Australian forces reinforcing Malaya and the bulk of the Japanese forces committed in China and Siberia how much can they spare for the south? Also assuming that Britain moves subs back from the Med and in co-operation with the Dutch subs in the DEI that could cause a lot of problems for Japanese shipping. It would depend on who was exhausted 1st, British ability to hold the Malaya barrier or Japanese oil supplies. If the former things are bad for the allies but if the latter the wheels start coming off the Japanese war machine fairly quickly which would ease things for Britain and to a lesser degree Russia.
Without a clear US entry into the war Britain is going to be forced to make peace once the Soviets either collapse or come to terms, especially if fighting all three Axis powers. The terms would depend on what the state of the world was at that point. However I'm doubtful that the Axis would have control of the ME and Japan could be in a dire position with serious imperial over-stretch.
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Oct 8, 2021 20:26:47 GMT
I've never understood why people think Japan would have been able to split the globe with Germany. Germany had much more warmaking capacity, and once the Russians had gone under, it would have been a race to see who was able to take more of east of the Urals. My guess is that Germany, with its panzers, their ability to repair railroads (crappy as it was compared to the allies, it still was almost infinitely better than that of the Japanese) would have been able to take most of Siberia, compared to the Japanese having to move north. I expect the Japanese would have ended up with a wedge of Siberia, from the easternmost corner of Mongolia to the Pacific, while the Germans would have ended up with pretty much all the rest of it. Germans would probably have insisted on half of India, as well. And howinthehell would the Japanese have managed to take Central and South America? I strongly suspect the South Americans would have fought that tooth and nail. The Japanese just didn't have the sealift capacity to do this in any sort of reasonable timeframe. The Germans would have had access to the shipping of Europe to move troops across the atlantic as well. Anyway... Its all pointless speculation, as the axis was screwed from the get go. Here's a link to an analysis that is far from professional, but touches on the major points as to why the axis and, in particular, Japan were screwed. www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm Belushi TD
That is only the comparison - obviously from the Man in the High Castle TL - that the 1st video rejects. It assumes that Germany avoids war with the US and the latter stomps Japan but declines to go to war with Germany despite having a nuclear monopoly. The 2nd assumes that the US doesn't directly fight against either Germany or Japan.
Do agree that baring something that leads to a total collapse of US morale, which was pretty much impossible after Pearl Harbour, Japan was going to get stomped big time by the US.
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Oct 8, 2021 20:28:42 GMT
Of course, then Germany'd be in a lot of trouble economically, as they were just about out of foreign currency to pay for their imports and would have had to figure out how to exist in a world with a lot of it arrayed against them. Belushi TD True without the conquest of other countries to fuel its economy Germany is in trouble, it can only squeeze so much out its own economy before it becomes bankrupt.
Very much so with no loot from the conquered countries or slave labour and Hitler obsessed with a massive military expansion. It was doing all sort of tricks and bleeding the population dry to avoid economic chaos even before the war started.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 8, 2021 20:31:20 GMT
True without the conquest of other countries to fuel its economy Germany is in trouble, it can only squeeze so much out its own economy before it becomes bankrupt. Very much so with no loot from the conquered countries or slave labour and Hitler obsessed with a massive military expansion. It was doing all sort of tricks and bleeding the population dry to avoid economic chaos even before the war started.
Peace is not something Germany can afford, even not with a Soviet Union at its border in any way ore form. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Oct 9, 2021 10:17:27 GMT
Very much so with no loot from the conquered countries or slave labour and Hitler obsessed with a massive military expansion. It was doing all sort of tricks and bleeding the population dry to avoid economic chaos even before the war started.
Peace is not something Germany can afford, even not with a Soviet Union at its border in any way ore form.
Germany can afford and would greatly benefit from peace. However that would require it to be a responsible and preferably democratic state. Definitely not under Nazi rule.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 9, 2021 10:18:46 GMT
Peace is not something Germany can afford, even not with a Soviet Union at its border in any way ore form. Germany can afford and would greatly benefit from peace. However that would require it to be a responsible and preferably democratic state. Definitely not under Nazi rule.
And definitely not under Hitler rule. |
|
gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,609
Likes: 11,326
|
Post by gillan1220 on Oct 12, 2021 16:46:09 GMT
I remember watching Fatherland on October 9, 2013 after first semester of freshmen year ended. It gave me the first look of how a Nazi Cold War would look like.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 12, 2021 16:50:25 GMT
I remember watching Fatherland on October 9, 2013 after first semester of freshmen year ended. It gave me the first look of how a Nazi Cold War would look like. The movie is in my eyes was worse than the book i felt was good. |
|
