|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jul 8, 2023 22:42:22 GMT
Took quite a long time, but now I've reached the end of 1940. The pre-Barbarossa 1941 will be the next episode.
The changes - besides butterflies caused by the battle of Dunkirk and the strike against the "Black Orchestra" aren't too big yet, however. Even despite the fact that I rolled a minor six for the Nazis, and the got good weather for their bombing runs against Britain in early August 1940.
Most big things stay the same: Trotsky's still murdered; Carol II of Romania still toppled; Chamberlain still died, Churchill's still leading the Tory Party; Lord Lothian also dies, Eden's new Foreign Minister; Operation Felix is still not done, even if the talks with Spain went better; Italy still failed in Greece; and of course, Sea Lion wasn't even tried. (This would have been a big change if the Nazis, encouraged by a Dunkirk victory, would have tried; but that's something for a different TL.)
Main difference: Operation Compass hasn't happened (yet), because Britain is lacking the troops. But that's a result of Dunkirk. Troops are needed in the motherland first. It's what Churchill would have done before it became obvious that Sea Lion wouldn't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jul 15, 2023 21:53:24 GMT
Russia. If only: a. Started earlier. (Ukraine example today. Mud mud mud. Begins in February and lasts until August.) This change is a shibboleth. b. No Balkans diversion. Maybe a Panzer corps and two infantry corps. In the grand scheme of things did 125,000 Germans, with associated arms, matter in that campaign? If there had BEEN no Balkans diversion about 750,000 "allied" troops would not have joined the Hitlerite war against the Russians. So that is a chimera. c. Only drive against Moscow. See Map.  Since I recently read "The Moscow option: an alternative Second World War" by David Downing: It's certainly true that transferring troops from north of Moscow to its south would take about four times longer. Still, I think one question has to be considered if you wonder whether the Wehrmacht should rather have attacked Ukraine or Moscow: Even if the Nazis were very bad in exploiting the resources of conquered territory, there is no doubt that their enemies couldn't use them anymore either.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470 
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jul 15, 2023 22:18:48 GMT
Russia. If only: a. Started earlier. (Ukraine example today. Mud mud mud. Begins in February and lasts until August.) This change is a shibboleth. b. No Balkans diversion. Maybe a Panzer corps and two infantry corps. In the grand scheme of things did 125,000 Germans, with associated arms, matter in that campaign? If there had BEEN no Balkans diversion about 750,000 "allied" troops would not have joined the Hitlerite war against the Russians. So that is a chimera. c. Only drive against Moscow. See Map. Since I recently read "The Moscow option: an alternative Second World War" by David Downing: It's certainly true that transferring troops from north of Moscow to its south would take about four times longer. Still, I think one question has to be considered if you wonder whether the Wehrmacht should rather have attacked Ukraine or Moscow: Even if the Nazis were very bad in exploiting the resources of conquered territory, there is no doubt that their enemies couldn't use them anymore either. Stalin substituted AMERICANS to make the lack up. We had our own reasons to cooperate, but if we had not? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,851 
Likes: 13,233
|
Post by stevep on Jul 16, 2023 12:16:52 GMT
Since I recently read "The Moscow option: an alternative Second World War" by David Downing: It's certainly true that transferring troops from north of Moscow to its south would take about four times longer. Still, I think one question has to be considered if you wonder whether the Wehrmacht should rather have attacked Ukraine or Moscow: Even if the Nazis were very bad in exploiting the resources of conquered territory, there is no doubt that their enemies couldn't use them anymore either. Stalin substituted AMERICANS to make the lack up. We had our own reasons to cooperate, but if we had not?
More accurately Washington was glad to substitute Russians when the British and French were no longer able to defeat Hitler for them. Ultimately they had to play a direct part when errors by Japan and Germany gave them no option - albeit there is an argument that was FDR's aim all along from July 1940. Stalin did get a much better deal on material aid than Britain did but then as you say the US had reasons to do so.
Ultimately, unless their really stupid the US will get directly involved because it's in their own interests to, especially with the dark scenario being presented here.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jul 16, 2023 13:32:36 GMT
More accurately Washington was glad to substitute Russians when the British and French were no longer able to defeat Hitler for them. FDR was smart. CYNICAL Miletus |
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Aug 9, 2023 16:06:27 GMT
I've been thinking about AH authors, i.e. what they might write about in this ATL, and went through my list. And found that there are about 40 of them who were born early enough to exist *here* - some of them are even published already. Here's the list, incl. birth years.
Robert Sobel * 1931
Harlan Ellison 1934
Harry Harrison 1925
Carl Amery 1922
Roger Zelazny 1937
Robert Conroy 1938
Otto Basil (24 December 1901, Vienna)
Sam Youd=John Christopher (16 April 1922)
Philip K. Dick * 1928
Cees Nooteboom 1933
Robert A. Heinlein
Joanna Russ 1937
Philip Roth 1933
Kingsley Amis 1922
Harry Mulisch 1927
Jack Finney 1911
Norman Spinrad 9/1940
Poul Anderson 1926
Murray Leinster 1896
Jerry Yulsman 1924
Keith Roberts 1935
Robert Silverberg 1935
Nathanael West 1903
J. Ward Moore 1903
Sarban 1910
Dave Duncan 1933
Nikos Kazantzakis 1883
Katharine Burdekin 1896
H. Beam Piper 1904
Len Deighton 1929
Eric Norden 1899
Hilary Bailey 1936
Gary Gygax 1938
L. Sprague de Camp 1907
Ray Bradbury 1920
Jorge Luis Borges 1899
Stephen Leacock 1869
William Tenn 1920
R.A. Lafferty 1914
Helmut Heißenbüttel 1921
That even without counting Ayn Rand and John Brunner!
Originally I had thought about writing wiki articles for them, but not if there are that many of them.
Anybody particularly interested in a certain author writing ITTL?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,020
Likes: 49,423
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 9, 2023 18:01:14 GMT
I've been thinking about AH authors, i.e. what they might write about in this ATL, and went through my list. And found that there are about 40 of them who were born early enough to exist *here* - some of them are even published already. Here's the list, incl. birth years. Philip K. Dick * 1928 Would it be a worst ore better Germany wins TL than what he wrote with The Man in the High Castle. |
|
michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 488
Likes: 804
|
Post by michelvan on Aug 9, 2023 19:53:44 GMT
Would it be a worst ore better Germany wins TL than what he [Philip K. Dick] wrote with The Man in the High Castle. The Vision of Hitler of Tausend Jährigen Reich become Reality is more gruesome as Dick Novel i preferring TL were German Empire is victors, despite their faults and errors, they not murderous maniacs like Nazis. yes the Empire commit genocide in Namibia, but never in industrial scale the Nazis made during holocaust. note on list of max sinister Harry Norman Turtledove is born in 1949, years after WW2 |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,851
Likes: 13,233
|
Post by stevep on Aug 9, 2023 20:10:10 GMT
I've been thinking about AH authors, i.e. what they might write about in this ATL, and went through my list. And found that there are about 40 of them who were born early enough to exist *here* - some of them are even published already. Here's the list, incl. birth years. Philip K. Dick * 1928 Would it be a worst ore better Germany wins TL than what he wrote with The Man in the High Castle.
Well if I remember rightly its not that the win in the MinHC type scenario but that they survive as one of two great powers - with a reduced USSR as a somewhat distant 3rd - so the amount of the world that their inflicting their insanity on is distinctly smaller than in Dick's book. However depending on how much the fanatics win by its still going to be a disaster for 10's of millions of people if not an order of magnitude more.
|
|
michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 488
Likes: 804
|
Post by michelvan on Aug 15, 2023 15:48:47 GMT
Very interesting question what if USA stay neutral and self Isolated ?
more in Video
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,851
Likes: 13,233
|
Post by stevep on Aug 15, 2023 21:59:02 GMT
Very interesting question what if USA stay neutral and self Isolated ? more in Video
Basically if the US decided on strict neutrality and only the initial pay as you go then Britain is probably forced to make peace sometime in early/mid 1941. That might mean time to protect the eastern dominions and colonies if Japan still attacks. - Not sure if Japan would because if the US didn't support China, either directly or by various embargoes then Japan has less incentive to drive south. Especially since without US support Britain is unlikely to embargo Japan either. The US army and probably much of its army air force wouldn't expand anything like as much as OTL but I would expect the USN would grow, possibly even more rapidly than OTL. Which might still trigger a conflict with Japan, especially if the US decided to militarize their bases in the western Pacific, most importantly the Philippines, as Japan would see that as a serious threat.
Those conditions would be bad for Britain since they would need to maintain a highly militarized economy regardless of the conditions of the peace agreement as its clear by this time Hitler can be fully trusted to break any agreement he makes once he thinks its favourable to him. Even worse for the Soviets who are going to be fighting largely alone, albeit I could see some trade between the British empire and USSR for mutual aid. Worst of all for the people under Nazi occupation and also for those under the Japanese boot in Asia.
Best bet, unless the US wakes up at some point, is that the USSR survives and ties down the Germans enough that they last out until the Britain and its allies produce a nuclear weapon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Aug 17, 2023 1:19:49 GMT
michelvan, that's why I didn't mention Turtledove - he would be butterflied away, like so many others. I expect that the winning Nazi Germany will be restricted to western Europe without the British Isles, parts of the Soviet Union, North Africa and the Near/Middle East. Because anything beyond that are really ASBish. Worse than what Dick wrote? Hard to imagine. As I said elsewhere, killing off all blacks in Africa is crazy even for Adolf Nazi. We're talking about some hundred million dead people here! stevep, yeah, that's what happens in "The Grasshopper Lies Heavy".
|
|
michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 488
Likes: 804
|
Post by michelvan on Aug 17, 2023 16:28:04 GMT
that's why I didn't mention Turtledove Turteldove ?  there really bad example about book with victorious Nazis, some write by Turteldove.... |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,851
Likes: 13,233
|
Post by stevep on Aug 17, 2023 20:08:41 GMT
michelvan , that's why I didn't mention Turtledove - he would be butterflied away, like so many others. I expect that the winning Nazi Germany will be restricted to western Europe without the British Isles, parts of the Soviet Union, North Africa and the Near/Middle East. Because anything beyond that are really ASBish. Worse than what Dick wrote? Hard to imagine. As I said elsewhere, killing off all blacks in Africa is crazy even for Adolf Nazi. We're talking about some hundred million dead people here! stevep , yeah, that's what happens in "The Grasshopper Lies Heavy".
Not only all blacks in Africa and of course all Jews they can find but most of the Slavs. Plus I don't remember what he says about the status of China and other states in the Japanese empire. [Dick may not have known how brutal Japanese rule was, or possibly though that would be too distant for his designed western audience.
Long time since I read the book and I knew that there was a cold war between the UK and US but don't remember the former being that militaristic. Do recall a line referencing Churchill at ~90 years of age and still in control - which is highly unlikely as he was already suffering from senility a decade earlier - and comparing him to a Mongol warlord. He never said anything that I can recall as to how Britain was maintaining its empire??, along it now included all the continent of Europe as well as most of the old world with the main exceptions IIRC being China and Japan that were in the US sphere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Aug 19, 2023 19:06:30 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.
|
|
