stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,852 
Likes: 13,234
|
Post by stevep on Aug 20, 2023 13:45:33 GMT
As said, that's what happens in "Grasshopper...". Dick reasons (not that he convinced me) that since Churchill could be reelected as often as he wanted - and the Brits actually did too - while POTUSes change every few years, the British Empire is essentially unstoppable. Not as unrealistic as the Nazi-wank, but still.
I would agree with you rather than Dick on that. Just because someone can theoretically be re-elected repeatedly doesn't mean they will be, let alone that its a good idea. Plus if you have the same party, let alone the same person in power for a prolonged period your going to lose a lot of flexibility in ideas, even without the moral decay that's almost certain to occur with the same people in power for an extended period.
I recall some reference to Britain controlling the entire continent of Europe as far as the Volga or Urals and that simply isn't practical. Even with a continent shell-shocked by a possibly worse than OTL WWII and a Britain somehow not exhausted after years of bitter war Britain would neither have the means or desire to maintain control over such a vast area and population. Plus since Britain is already a democratic state does that mean that all those people are British citizens - which would effectively mean they would control the government - or imperial subjects with probably only limited local self-government - which would be a recipe for continued unrest and rebellion even if Britain desired that. Let alone Britain maintaining control of its existing empire - presumably expanded to include the other European colonies as their homelands are now parts of the empire. From a ~1939 start or probably before India was going to go by ~1950 and the only question would be under what conditions and how much bloodshed that might require to achieve/try and prevent independence.
|
|
michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Member is Online
Posts: 488
Likes: 804
|
Post by michelvan on Aug 26, 2023 4:03:44 GMT
on Phillip K Dick POD in The Man in the High Castle who realistic is it ?
Here Giuseppe Zangara assassinates President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 15, 1933
he manage to hit the mayor of Chicago, Anton Cermak, who died later in hospital, he stand right next to FDR.
had attack went different, it could be FDR who died in Hospital
John Nance Garner III was inaugurated as president on March 4, 1933 (as 59th or 60th president ?)
A conservative who wanted a weakened new deal, less government control and federal intervention to break up strikes.
and supported a balanced federal budget, on the disadvantage of New Deal.
Is let slower recovery of USA from the Great Depression and on 1936 US presidential election,
Voter take Republican in hope he does better, like William Edgar Borah who is an isolationist and support a neutral USA.
He dies in office on january 1940, but his Vice could be elected in 1940,
But how realistic is that Borah become US president and keep isolationist and Neutrality agenda, in face the German invasion of France ?
also his vice president replace him is Robert M. La Follette ?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,852
Likes: 13,234
|
Post by stevep on Aug 26, 2023 10:28:29 GMT
on Phillip K Dick POD in The Man in the High Castle who realistic is it ? Here Giuseppe Zangara assassinates President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 15, 1933 he manage to hit the mayor of Chicago, Anton Cermak, who died later in hospital, he stand right next to FDR. had attack went different, it could be FDR who died in Hospital John Nance Garner III was inaugurated as president on March 4, 1933 (as 59th or 60th president ?) A conservative who wanted a weakened new deal, less government control and federal intervention to break up strikes. and supported a balanced federal budget, on the disadvantage of New Deal. Is let slower recovery of USA from the Great Depression and on 1936 US presidential election, Voter take Republican in hope he does better, like William Edgar Borah who is an isolationist and support a neutral USA. He dies in office on january 1940, but his Vice could be elected in 1940, But how realistic is that Borah become US president and keep isolationist and Neutrality agenda, in face the German invasion of France ? also his vice president replace him is Robert M. La Follette ?
I think most of those parts are largely realistic. Borah is probably an unlikely successful candidate for the Republicans as he did try and stand in 1936 but was seen as too much of a "long term maverick" by much of the party. Although possibly with a failed Garner Presidency people are desperate enough to consider him?
The US still had strong isolationist elements, especially with regards to war in Europe - some seemed less hostile to war in the Pacific. Coupled with a weaker recovery and no full one this could be even worse in this scenario and while the fall of France was a shock its possible that the attitude is if Britain isn't 'sensible' enough to make peace that's its choice.
Robert M. La Follette Jr - his father died in 1925 - seems to have been an isolationist and rather vague on foreign affairs so could have further delayed US involvement in the war in Europe. So long since I read the book and can't remember what it says about how the US enters the conflict but assuming war in the Pacific starts as OTL, with Germany then declaring war but with Britain already weaker and possibly Russia already largely defeated? Even so the idea of a successful Axis invasion of N America is farcical. |
|
michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Member is Online
Posts: 488
Likes: 804
|
Post by michelvan on Aug 26, 2023 11:21:49 GMT
with Germany then declaring war but with Britain already weaker and possibly Russia already largely defeated? now those are different caliber Britain and Russia together can bring Hitler reich on his knees. But what Britain pull out war ? December 13, 1931, Winston Churchill was hit by car in New York but what if he was killed in accident ? Lord Halifax become Prime-minister in 1940 That Lord Halifax, who wanted negotiate with Axis, For retreating the BEF from Dunkirk toward Britain ! Here Hitler gamble pay out and He get Agreement: Nazi control over Europa and destruction of USSR and British Empire stay unharmed, if mind there own business ! I think that Halifax would sign this Agreement to end this War keep the Empire out this conflict and have someone else deal with communism but even Soviet union alone is serious enemy and got a ruthless dictator: Stalin. Stalin trow everything into battle to defeat the Nazi The Wehrmacht face Red Army in ratio of 1 to 2 later 1 to 4 and Stalin had reserve to go 1 to 6. means one german soldiers has to kill 2-4 russians solders, despite the lack of weapons. If Germans are lucky with Neutral USA and Britain under Halifax pull out of War They still got mother Russia and Uncle Stalin to deal with for years to come who of both run out of resources first, is the loser. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,852
Likes: 13,234
|
Post by stevep on Aug 26, 2023 11:44:22 GMT
with Germany then declaring war but with Britain already weaker and possibly Russia already largely defeated? now those are different caliber Britain and Russia together can bring Hitler reich on his knees. But what Britain pull out war ? December 13, 1931, Winston Churchill was hit by car in New York but what if he was killed in accident ? Lord Halifax become Prime-minister in 1940 That Lord Halifax, who wanted negotiate with Axis, For retreating the BEF from Dunkirk toward Britain ! Here Hitler gamble pay out and He get Agreement: Nazi control over Europa and destruction of USSR and British Empire stay unharmed, if mind there own business ! I think that Halifax would sign this Agreement to end this War keep the Empire out this conflict and have someone else deal with communism but even Soviet union alone is serious enemy and got a ruthless dictator: Stalin. Stalin trow everything into battle to defeat the Nazi The Wehrmacht face Red Army in ratio of 1 to 2 later 1 to 4 and Stalin had reserve to go 1 to 6. means one german soldiers has to kill 2-4 russians solders, despite the lack of weapons. If Germans are lucky with Neutral USA and Britain under Halifax pull out of War They still got mother Russia and Uncle Stalin to deal with for years to come who of both run out of resources first, is the loser.
Well if Britain makes peace and it lasted then I think it unlikely that the US and Nazi Germany would go to war. Mind you I think that's a bloody big IF unless Germany is defeated or driven to a peace of mutual exhaustion by the Soviets. Their entire system is too tied to warfare and looting to stay stable for long while at peace.
According to some sources Russia was seriously short of manpower [including women-power in some areas] by the end of the war - its a matter of some heated debate I think. As such in a solo war with Germany and its allies manpower could still be a significant shortfall for the Soviets - albeit that if Britain did make peace Stalin would hopefully get his head out of his ass and actually listen to warnings of the impending German strike.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Aug 26, 2023 22:51:57 GMT
stevep: Yeah - Churchill may have been the best politician Britain had in the 20th century, but that doesn't mean he was good enough to create this Britwank. michelvan: FDR's assassination might have happened, and his potential successors would have handled the crisis badly, very probable. (Recently I found out: FDR knew German fluently, and he had read a certain book called "Mein Kampf" - the uncensored German version, not the bowdlerized authorized translations.) A German conquest of Britain, let alone the US is still way out of reach. I keep wondering why Dick thought this was possible. Did the drugs make him think like that?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,852
Likes: 13,234
|
Post by stevep on Aug 27, 2023 14:30:49 GMT
stevep : Yeah - Churchill may have been the best politician Britain had in the 20th century, but that doesn't mean he was good enough to create this Britwank. michelvan : FDR's assassination might have happened, and his potential successors would have handled the crisis badly, very probable. (Recently I found out: FDR knew German fluently, and he had read a certain book called "Mein Kampf" - the uncensored German version, not the bowdlerized authorized translations.) A German conquest of Britain, let alone the US is still way out of reach. I keep wondering why Dick thought this was possible. Did the drugs make him think like that?
I wouldn't say Churchill was the best we had in the 20thC. He was the man we needed in summer/autumn 40 to solidify the desire to continue the war - although with the right leader the option of a suitable peace might - and I say might - have been a better option for Britain but he made too many mistakes during the war itself, often putting too much emphasis on attack at all costs rather than apply resources where they would be best used for Britain. He was at his best when more cautious, such as agreeing with his military commanders about avoiding a 1943 invasion of N France.
Also no one, at least not without massive mind control abilities, would be able to enable the sort of Britwank written in the Grasshopper story. Although while the description of it here makes it sound like some sort of semi-repressive state I do recall a line about under British control/rule the British bobby maintaining law and order as far east as the Urals and the idea of an unarmed police force operating over such a vast area - which would probably be highly unrealistic given the history of most of those regions - makes it sounds more like British rule/leadership had a broad level of acceptance.
Fully agree it would take something totally unrealistic for a successful Axis invasion of N America regardless of them conquering the entire old world hemisphere. A German conquest of Britain would be difficult by force but without massive support from the US an Axis that has conquered Russia as far as the Urals would be able to starve Britain out if nothing else. Especially given how chaotic and destructive Nazi [and in the east Japanese] rule was. The two empires could eventually die the death of a million cuts being gradually bled white by guerilla resistance, desperate uprisings etc until the home front collapses.
Think I've said it before but I suspect Dick has the total Axis victory, including the occupation and partition of the US for shock purposes. It made for a big story that would attract more interest simply because it was so shocking and [for those who were aware of the facts] basically impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 2, 2023 2:07:23 GMT
Nothing to disagree about, Steve. Now to the topic of an alternate Continuation War. As mentioned, cutting off Murmansk, or even taking it, would hamper the logistics of the convoys from the WAllies for the SU pretty much. If you can't take the city itself, you could cut the railway at any point in between - like at Kandalaksha, or Byelomorsk. Of course, there are several problems to solve: - The terrain in question (esp. close to Murmansk) is about the hardest there is on Earth. Hell, even general Eduard Dietl dared to tell the "führer" that it's like after the creation of the world.
- The Finns wanted to conquer the lost territory back, but only a minority wanted more than that. That's why their troops didn't like to advance further.
- German troops weren't that well prepared for the winter. But you know that.
I've read some books about the OTL background, "Finland in the Second World War: Between Germany and Russia" by Olli Vehviläinen, and Earl F. Ziemke's "German Northern Theater of Operations 1940–1945". In the Lapland theater, the Axis had five divisions (but keep in mind that the German mountaineer division were somewhat smaller than usual divisions), the Soviets six incl. one reserve division. This should be changed if you want to succeed there. Some ideas which might help: - With the BEF defeated at Dunkirk, the "führer" might decide to move some divisions from France and Norway esp. to the East. This might help in this theater too - originally, Dietl had demanded four divisions for striking at Murmansk, but only got two.
- Concentrate on cutting off the railway instead of trying to advance through the horrible terrain between Petsamo and Murmansk
- An uncommon solution: Make Mannerheim the supreme commander of this theater. Maybe this'll motivate him to advance farther, or teach the German soldiers how to fight a winter war.
Then again: Since I think that the Nazis would better win their war in 1941, Murmansk will matter just for a few months. Esp. since the harbor's facilities were dismantled (Murmansk was considered to be too close to the fighting lines, 40 miles only) and had to be brought back and reconstructed later, after the WAllies promised to support the SU. |
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 6, 2023 2:06:20 GMT
I've checked a certain other AH forum for ideas re: an attack on Kandalaksha (Kantalahti)/Belomorsk, but didn't find anything. Well, this nice map of Soviet rail system in 1941, but I hadn't looked for that. But also another problem: The US had threatened to declare war on Finland if they took Murmansk or Belomorsk (Sorokka in Finnish). Under this condition, it's not surprising that the Finns will only attack Soviet cities which don't matter much in the whole situation. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,852
Likes: 13,234
|
Post by stevep on Sept 6, 2023 9:00:41 GMT
I've checked a certain other AH forum for ideas re: an attack on Kandalaksha (Kantalahti)/Belomorsk, but didn't find anything. Well, this nice map of Soviet rail system in 1941, but I hadn't looked for that. But also another problem: The US had threatened to declare war on Finland if they took Murmansk or Belomorsk (Sorokka in Finnish). Under this condition, it's not surprising that the Finns will only attack Soviet cities which don't matter much in the whole situation.
That 2nd bit is interesting. Not aware of this before? Was this before or after the US was at war with Germany? Assuming afterwards but might leave open the option for the Finns and Germans to take it before.
Know that Britain was reluctant to declare war on Finland because there was a lot of sympathy for them after the Winter War and only did so under pressure from Stalin towards the end of 1941. The above implies that the US never did such a dow?
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 7, 2023 4:03:15 GMT
I've checked a certain other AH forum for ideas re: an attack on Kandalaksha (Kantalahti)/Belomorsk, but didn't find anything. Well, this nice map of Soviet rail system in 1941, but I hadn't looked for that. But also another problem: The US had threatened to declare war on Finland if they took Murmansk or Belomorsk (Sorokka in Finnish). Under this condition, it's not surprising that the Finns will only attack Soviet cities which don't matter much in the whole situation.
That 2nd bit is interesting. Not aware of this before? Was this before or after the US was at war with Germany? Assuming afterwards but might leave open the option for the Finns and Germans to take it before.
Know that Britain was reluctant to declare war on Finland because there was a lot of sympathy for them after the Winter War and only did so under pressure from Stalin towards the end of 1941. The above implies that the US never did such a dow?
That's correct - Finland didn't declare war on the US and vice versa. Yeah, so much about a world in which every Axis power is at war with every Allied one. (Everyone knows about the SU and Japan having no war until 1945, and some have heard about Bulgaria and the SU, but Finland-US is lesser known.)
But now to something completely different. Originally I had thought about a situation about like this: The Wehrmacht is even closer to Moscow than IOTL, only General Mud prevents them from advancing further, but as soon as the ground will freeze, they'll be able to do that. The railroad to Murmansk is cut at Kandalaksha or so, and even the Transsib is cut due to an incident with the Japanese. Stalin's nerves fail, he contacts the Nazis, and they agree to make peace on the condition that he invades Persia and such - to strike at the Empire. Kontinentalblock and all that.
But as @miletus pointed out earlier, the Transsib idea doesn't work so well, and Kandalaksha also No idea whether a few more divisions for the Wehrmacht (remember, Dunkirk) will suffice to make a difference.
And without peace with Stalin, fighting off the WAllies will be pretty much impossible for Nazi Germany. Even with Stalin as an ally it'll be hard.
Seems the whole TL can't work like this.
And that would be a bad thing, because I have not only found out many interesting tidbits from RL history I'd like to mention, but also got many ideas what to write about in the post-war world (seriously, I've checked my file, meanwhile I've passed the 555 mark), which look at aspects rarely seen in AH books.
"The Moscow Option" (the AH book) also isn't really one.
Any thoughts?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,852
Likes: 13,234
|
Post by stevep on Sept 7, 2023 8:41:04 GMT
That 2nd bit is interesting. Not aware of this before? Was this before or after the US was at war with Germany? Assuming afterwards but might leave open the option for the Finns and Germans to take it before.
Know that Britain was reluctant to declare war on Finland because there was a lot of sympathy for them after the Winter War and only did so under pressure from Stalin towards the end of 1941. The above implies that the US never did such a dow?
That's correct - Finland didn't declare war on the US and vice versa. Yeah, so much about a world in which every Axis power is at war with every Allied one. (Everyone knows about the SU and Japan having no war until 1945, and some have heard about Bulgaria and the SU, but Finland-US is lesser known.)
But now to something completely different. Originally I had thought about a situation about like this: The Wehrmacht is even closer to Moscow than IOTL, only General Mud prevents them from advancing further, but as soon as the ground will freeze, they'll be able to do that. The railroad to Murmansk is cut at Kandalaksha or so, and even the Transsib is cut due to an incident with the Japanese. Stalin's nerves fail, he contacts the Nazis, and they agree to make peace on the condition that he invades Persia and such - to strike at the Empire. Kontinentalblock and all that.
But as @miletus pointed out earlier, the Transsib idea doesn't work so well, and Kandalaksha also No idea whether a few more divisions for the Wehrmacht (remember, Dunkirk) will suffice to make a difference.
And without peace with Stalin, fighting off the WAllies will be pretty much impossible for Nazi Germany. Even with Stalin as an ally it'll be hard.
Seems the whole TL can't work like this.
And that would be a bad thing, because I have not only found out many interesting tidbits from RL history I'd like to mention, but also got many ideas what to write about in the post-war world (seriously, I've checked my file, meanwhile I've passed the 555 mark), which look at aspects rarely seen in AH books.
"The Moscow Option" (the AH book) also isn't really one.
Any thoughts?
As I understand it the barrier to a Nazi-Soviet peace agreement isn't Stalin, who would have been eager for one before the successful defence of Moscow and winter counter-attack but Hitler, who refused serious negotiations even as the Soviets approached Berlin. When his forces are on the outskirts of Moscow and he feels total victory is so near then it would need a totally different Hitler to have any agreement. Plus such an agreement is likely to have the resultant border probably around the Urals, or at least on the Volga for much of its lower length which would really cripple the USSR. Apart from anything else Germany would want Baku, which would give them the desired oil - at least in theory - and also access to Iran themselves.
Got to go to work but will try and reply again later.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,022
Likes: 49,424
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 7, 2023 20:04:51 GMT
"The Moscow Option" (the AH book) also isn't really one.
Have that book also in my book shelf. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,852
Likes: 13,234
|
Post by stevep on Sept 7, 2023 21:33:02 GMT
That's correct - Finland didn't declare war on the US and vice versa. Yeah, so much about a world in which every Axis power is at war with every Allied one. (Everyone knows about the SU and Japan having no war until 1945, and some have heard about Bulgaria and the SU, but Finland-US is lesser known.)
But now to something completely different. Originally I had thought about a situation about like this: The Wehrmacht is even closer to Moscow than IOTL, only General Mud prevents them from advancing further, but as soon as the ground will freeze, they'll be able to do that. The railroad to Murmansk is cut at Kandalaksha or so, and even the Transsib is cut due to an incident with the Japanese. Stalin's nerves fail, he contacts the Nazis, and they agree to make peace on the condition that he invades Persia and such - to strike at the Empire. Kontinentalblock and all that.
But as @miletus pointed out earlier, the Transsib idea doesn't work so well, and Kandalaksha also No idea whether a few more divisions for the Wehrmacht (remember, Dunkirk) will suffice to make a difference.
And without peace with Stalin, fighting off the WAllies will be pretty much impossible for Nazi Germany. Even with Stalin as an ally it'll be hard.
Seems the whole TL can't work like this.
And that would be a bad thing, because I have not only found out many interesting tidbits from RL history I'd like to mention, but also got many ideas what to write about in the post-war world (seriously, I've checked my file, meanwhile I've passed the 555 mark), which look at aspects rarely seen in AH books.
"The Moscow Option" (the AH book) also isn't really one.
Any thoughts?
As I understand it the barrier to a Nazi-Soviet peace agreement isn't Stalin, who would have been eager for one before the successful defence of Moscow and winter counter-attack but Hitler, who refused serious negotiations even as the Soviets approached Berlin. When his forces are on the outskirts of Moscow and he feels total victory is so near then it would need a totally different Hitler to have any agreement. Plus such an agreement is likely to have the resultant border probably around the Urals, or at least on the Volga for much of its lower length which would really cripple the USSR. Apart from anything else Germany would want Baku, which would give them the desired oil - at least in theory - and also access to Iran themselves.
Got to go to work but will try and reply again later.
Further on this I think that the best bet for your scenario is something removing Hitler between 22-6-41 and the winter defeats. Orr possibly just after the latter. [This could also mean that assuming Japan still attacks the western powers Germany doesn't declare war on the US.] Under those conditions you could get a peace that prompts both huge - but not fatal for the Soviets - German annexations and possibly even the Soviet attack on their allies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 9, 2023 22:21:56 GMT
That's correct - Finland didn't declare war on the US and vice versa. Yeah, so much about a world in which every Axis power is at war with every Allied one. (Everyone knows about the SU and Japan having no war until 1945, and some have heard about Bulgaria and the SU, but Finland-US is lesser known.)
But now to something completely different. Originally I had thought about a situation about like this: The Wehrmacht is even closer to Moscow than IOTL, only General Mud prevents them from advancing further, but as soon as the ground will freeze, they'll be able to do that. The railroad to Murmansk is cut at Kandalaksha or so, and even the Transsib is cut due to an incident with the Japanese. Stalin's nerves fail, he contacts the Nazis, and they agree to make peace on the condition that he invades Persia and such - to strike at the Empire. Kontinentalblock and all that.
But as @miletus pointed out earlier, the Transsib idea doesn't work so well, and Kandalaksha also No idea whether a few more divisions for the Wehrmacht (remember, Dunkirk) will suffice to make a difference.
And without peace with Stalin, fighting off the WAllies will be pretty much impossible for Nazi Germany. Even with Stalin as an ally it'll be hard.
Seems the whole TL can't work like this.
And that would be a bad thing, because I have not only found out many interesting tidbits from RL history I'd like to mention, but also got many ideas what to write about in the post-war world (seriously, I've checked my file, meanwhile I've passed the 555 mark), which look at aspects rarely seen in AH books.
"The Moscow Option" (the AH book) also isn't really one.
Any thoughts?
As I understand it the barrier to a Nazi-Soviet peace agreement isn't Stalin, who would have been eager for one before the successful defence of Moscow and winter counter-attack but Hitler, who refused serious negotiations even as the Soviets approached Berlin. When his forces are on the outskirts of Moscow and he feels total victory is so near then it would need a totally different Hitler to have any agreement. Plus such an agreement is likely to have the resultant border probably around the Urals, or at least on the Volga for much of its lower length which would really cripple the USSR. Apart from anything else Germany would want Baku, which would give them the desired oil - at least in theory - and also access to Iran themselves.
Got to go to work but will try and reply again later.
The original nazi idea was the Volga line, which could be used to destroy the remaining industry in the Urals with airstrikes. But IMO that's ASBish. We're talking about a territory of several million square kilometers here, with a population bigger than the Reich. How are they supposed to hold this down, with a surviving if reduced SU next door?
A new border along the Dniepr-Dvina line, or at the Don max., for easier defense, would be the realistic maximum, I think. If you want the Reich to survive for at least 20 years.
"The Moscow Option" (the AH book) also isn't really one.
Have that book also in my book shelf. And now I reread it. It had some nice tidbits. E.g. {Spoiler}
Eichmann in Palestine being killed by a Jewish sniper. Or Churchill reading Hornblower for fun.
And it's an exercise in imperial overstretch. (The Romans needed centuries, the nazis achieve it in a few years.) I think that's what the author wanted to tell us.
But I'm skeptical about the book. The Nazis taking Moscow? Even if half of the population has left the city, that leaves two million potential partisans. It looks like Stalingrad multiplied by a factor of five, at least. {Spoiler}
And yet, the Wehrmacht also takes Gorky AND Stalingrad AND the Caucasus AND Tabriz AND Egypt AND invades Palestine before they're finally stopped? And the Japanese attack Vladivostok?
This simply breaks my suspension of disbelief. It's imaginable that the Nazis achieve more than in OTL (hell, I'm writing this TL after all), but this is too much.
Further on this I think that the best bet for your scenario is something removing Hitler between 22-6-41 and the winter defeats. Orr possibly just after the latter. [This could also mean that assuming Japan still attacks the western powers Germany doesn't declare war on the US.] Under those conditions you could get a peace that prompts both huge - but not fatal for the Soviets - German annexations and possibly even the Soviet attack on their allies. This might work indeed, and was exactly what happened in "The Moscow Option". The "führer's" plane crashes when the Wehrmacht has reached Smolensk, and he's in a coma for five months. So yes, it's an idea. But that feels like cheating. The rules I made for myself: No killing, incapacitating, blackmailing of Adolf Nazi in any way. I won't budge from that.
|
|
