Alternate History.

[Admiral Halsey]

I don't know if Subsim ever had an alternate history thread so I figured i'd make one.(I also don't know where it would go so I figured i'd put it here and if it's in the wrong part of the forums someone would move it for me.) So here's the first alternate history scenario. What if the Kiel mutiny never happened and the Naval order of 24 October 1918 was carried out. Could the Germans have pulled it off or would the fleet have been wiped out?

[Dread Knot]

Well, assuming that the crews of the High Seas Fleet are still in a mutinous mood even if the ships get under way, I think you are looking at a certain defeat just from a morale view point.

[Oberon]

Aaah, Alternate history, a favourite of mine, might I recommend http://www.alternatehistory.com which has some nice little timelines written on there.

So, POD is the Naval Mutiny...let's see...well, providing that all ships decide to follow the order, and not all of them might, it's going to be a fairly bad time for the German fleet. The British Grand Fleet was in a better state than at Jutland, it had identified most of the problems that afflicted it during that battle and had worked to neutralise them. It had new weaponry available to it, including ship bourne torpedo aircraft and the K-class submarine which, providing they didn't break down or sink themselves, were faster than any other submarine at the time. Morale in the Kaiserliche Marine wasn't particularly high, as the mutiny would prove, but the Grand Fleet was brimming with expectation for a rematch to right the wrongs that took place at Jutland. I may not like Beatty much (I'm a Jellicoe man) but he could certainly work up morale.
Of course there are many variables to consider, but the High Seas Fleet would have been severely outnumbered by the combined forces of the Grand Fleet and Harwich Force and in the largest naval battle the world had ever seen, it would have been savagely beaten until it was either forced to withdraw, or had been annihilated.

[Admiral Halsey]

the K-class submarine which, providing they didn't break down or sink themselves, were faster than any other submarine at the time..

Oh god not the Kalamity K's. Considering the luck those things had they would have sunk the ship carrying Beatty and half of the rest of the British fleet. For more fun about the K's I suggest reading about the "Battle of May Island".

[Raptor1]

They would not have pulled off anything. Even assuming the High Seas Fleet could tactically defeat the Grand Fleet (a dubious proposition, as Oberon points out), it would have achieved nothing in strategic terms. Germany's ground forces were very much in the process of being driven back by the Allies on the Western Front, Bulgaria had already been knocked out of the war the previous month and the Ottoman Empire was in the process of surrendering, with Austria-Hungary's disintegration following soon afterwards. All those factors combined with the long-lasting effects of the blockade on Germany, war weariness and so forth means that the outcome of the naval battle could do little to effect Germany's situation except maybe provide some manner of general morale boost.

Probably the only real effect this would have would be slightly delaying Germany's surrender by the sole fact that this event would not have provided the immediate trigger for revolution in the German Empire. So Germany's surrender might have come a few days later, perhaps under different internal conditions. But as far as the actual battle is concerned, I'm pretty sure it would have resulted in an outright defeat for the Germans and would not have provided any strategic advantage to them in any case.

[Jimbuna]

I don't know if Subsim ever had an alternate history thread so I figured i'd make one.(I also don't know where it would go so I figured i'd put it here and if it's in the wrong part of the forums someone would move it for me.) So here's the first alternate history scenario. What if the Kiel mutiny never happened and the Naval order of 24 October 1918 was carried out. Could the Germans have pulled it off or would the fleet have been wiped out?

Put simply....RULE BRITANNIA :cool:

[Admiral Halsey]

Interesting points guys and some good analysis. I'm hoping to avoid the standard alternate history scenarios and post lesser known points of divergence for you guys to ponder over.(Though tomorrow's will be one involving the US civil war it isn't a "Lee wins Gettysburg" one) Oh and thanks for the link to the site Oberon. :up:

[Admiral Halsey]

Well it's after midnight where I live so as I promised my next scenario for you guys to have fun with. The year is 1864 and the month is October. The South is less then six months from loosing the war. Meanwhile in Mexico the French are still trying to help Maximilian establish a Mexican monarchy. In this scenario the French navy and Union navy have a skirmish that makes Napoleon III declare war on the Union. What effect would this have on the civil war and who ultimately wins? Remember to consider the year and month I have stated this scenario takes place in.

[Aktungbby]

Absolutely no effect; Faragut is ordered to extend the blockade to the Mexican ports, cutting off the French troopships and preventing refueling. Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana and two French islands off Newfoundland are taken. The beast Butler, in command of New Orleans, raises new regiments of freed and mulatto blacks which the South, by this point in the war, had considered also. Lee and Grant, with Jeff Davis's blessing, agree to a temporary cessation of hostilities to coordinate in their ol' stompin' grounds of the Mexican War. Lee even separates Longstreet's corps, as at Chickamauga, to assist as old West Point comrades Generals Thomas and Sherman turn west without prompting, as surely as Patton at the Bulge. Stand Watie and his Cherokee Nation and vast numbers of paroled Confederate 'galvanized Yankees' eager to escape the POW camps along the frigid Great Lakes, who served or had forebears in the Mexican War, leap to the colours to repel the damn-froggies and their few enthusiastic Mexican allies, chafing under foreign domination. Throw in the feared Texas Rangers, always prepared for any Mexican related contingency- the Foreign Legion-and a few deals with the cutthroat Comancheros, the ghastly Comanche and Apaches, given license to rape, steal and plunder at will... ol Boney Tres, shocked at the Franco-phobia, will hafta' go away. FINIS! Lincoln had actually considered invading Canada a the beginning of his term to unite the entire country against a common foe; this is just a westerly variation...three years later. Hopefully, having united against a common foreign threat, cooler heads, Lee's in particular, as Generalissimo of the South, could prevail before a resumption of domestic hostilities.:salute:

[Admiral Halsey]

I remember reading somewhere about Lincoln's plan for invading Canada. Considering how early it was in the war I doubt we could have actually won if he had done so.(Grant and Sherman were complete unknowns at at that point.)

[Catfish]

Regarding alternate history, I am just reading 'Fatherland' from Harris, heard about it long ago but never cared.
Now i got it accidentally from a friend, who had it from a library being given up.
Pretty strange to read this, but Harris seems to know his stuff from the 4-meter-gauge railroads to party internals.


This is about a fictional Germany that was not defeated during WW2 (indeed there was no WW, since England did not declare war, and France, Scandinavia, Greece, North Africa was never part of any war action, the USA being happy someone fights the communists).
Poland has been invaded, and it with parts of Russia now belong to Germany, up to the 'Moscow line'. The war against partisans and Russia is still on, in 1964.


What strikes me is how familiar some things look, when it comes to surveillance. The book is displaying the what-if in 1964 :03::

- Wars have always been fought for freedom

- uniforms everywhere, the military is considered as the most important thing and being admired as the best of the best, parades and commemoration days. Everyone liking real freedom and despising the good necessary wars is being looked down upon, or worse.

- people are kept under constant strain by reported and made-up terrorist attacks, and the wars being fought against rogue or villain nations allegedly supporting those terrorists. All who dare to not like the Fatherland are partisans and terrorists, the rest living in rogue states

- Security levels due to terrorist attacks in green/blue/black/red, the Security police (SiPo) running most of the surveillance in a central block, gathering information of all people via hearsay and electronic means of all kinds - certainly only few cameras and no computers to speak of in 1964

- Drones (if primitive) used for surveillance, and microphones placed everywhere (little did they know it would be even easier, with the internet)

- Angst and suspicion towards illegal aliens from the world over, acting as scapegoats for unemployment and criminal activity, thus masquerading the good old Fremdenhass, at the same time promoting this feeling by the major media

- Public requests everywhere like 'Be vigilant at all times', 'Terrorists are everywhere', 'Attention, report suspicious packages at once!, 'Terrorist alert!'

- People reading certain books and talking about it publicly (criticizing the "free" republic and surveillance) are suspicious, their dossiers being kept for later inspection.


Have not finished it yet, i wonder what drove him to write this though in 1992.

[Admiral Halsey]

I've read that one before. One of the better alternate history books IMO.

[Tchocky]

This thread makes me want to dig out my old Harry Turtledove novels

[Admiral Halsey]

This thread makes me want to dig out my old Harry Turtledove novels

I haven't read any of his yet. I can't decide between his Worldwar series or the Southern Victory series. Oh and tomorrow i'll let you guys know what I think would happen with the previous days questions.

[mapuc]

In September 2013 USA started to bomb military installation in Syria.

After about to hours of bombing a clash between two American military vessel and a Russian vessel occurred. one of the American FFG and the Russian DG was sunked the second American vessel had to withdraw due to damage(I can't remember what trigger the incident, that came to this clash)

During this 2 weeks bombing a few clashes between USA and Russia occurred

Now we are in October and the diplomat are working day and night to prevent the situation in middle east to escalate further as it already has.

A back side of US bombing of Syria is that Lebanon, Jordan are now involved and daily Israel is being bombed from Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.

Every one is just waiting that Israel is going alle in and what's going to happen when that happens

CNN, FOX News and BBC World and other news channel, is sending 24/7 about this crisis

The Churches that's normally empty is now filled all the time

Ohh forgot one of the Cruise missile missed it's target and hit a Russian area(many say that the Russian placed the stuff there in porpoise

I can't remember everything from that time- I don't know if there's a world war going on or if there's peace now.

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

Not bad mapuc. :up:

[Oberon]

I can recommend the WorldWar series, quite an entertaining read, haven't read the Timeline-191 series though, the Days of Infamy is quite good too.
I got 1942 by Robert Conroy for Christmas, so I'm looking forward to reading through that and comparing and contrasting them.
There's a good list on Uchronia - http://www.uchronia.net/

[mapuc]

Not bad mapuc. :up:

Thank you

The story should have the name of thise three vessel and the exact date and time when USA started the bombing.

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

I can recommend the WorldWar series, quite an entertaining read, haven't read the Timeline-191 series though, the Days of Infamy is quite good too.
I got 1942 by Robert Conroy for Christmas, so I'm looking forward to reading through that and comparing and contrasting them.
There's a good list on Uchronia - http://www.uchronia.net/

I've read the Days of Infamy books and they're both quite good. I've also read Gingrich's Gettysburg series too and recommend it if you haven't read it yet. As for Conroy i've read Red Inferno and I have to say it was quite good. Maybe a bit unlikely in some instances.(Dropping the bomb on the exact same day as in RL is one such example.) But if you can get past them I can recommend it

[MGR1]

I can recommend the WorldWar series, quite an entertaining read, haven't read the Timeline-191 series though, the Days of Infamy is quite good too.
I got 1942 by Robert Conroy for Christmas, so I'm looking forward to reading through that and comparing and contrasting them.
There's a good list on Uchronia - http://www.uchronia.net/

I've read all but the first and and last of the TL-191 books.

Not bad, but not enough of an indication of what's happening outside the CONUS to form an idea of the world at large.

Too many characters as well.

Mike.:)

[Admiral Halsey]

I've read all but the first and and last of the TL-191 books.

Not bad, but not enough of an indication of what's happening outside the CONUS to form an idea of the world at large.

Too many characters as well.

Mike.:)

Thanks for the info. Now as promised my thoughts on my last two scenarios. The first one is all about surprise. If the Germans can catch the British off guard the could potentially pull off a "Raid on the Medway" type victory and secure better armistice terms.(That's more what the order was about from the beginning.) But as everyone else noted if the British catch wind of the plans early enough the Germans are pretty much doomed. As for the second one it all depends on how fast Napoleon III can get his fleet in France across the Atlantic to try and break the Union blockade. However even if he got there in time to do battle with the Union fleet they would get decimated from the Ironclads, and with the fall of the Confederacy imminent the threat of the Union invading Mexico will be great enough that he'll have to sue for peace.


Ok and new the latest scenario for you guys to ponder over.(This one is sort of cliched but i've yet to see an alternate history where this was the PoD.) The date is December, 7th and Private Joseph L. Lockard and Private George Elliot are on duty at the Opana Radar Site. They're heading for breakfast soon when at 7:02 am something big starts to appear on the radar set. They inform Lt. Kermit Tyler who tells them not to worry as it's just a flight of B-17's coming from the mainland but they both insist it's way to big for it to be them. After some convincing Kermit comes and checks it out at 7:30 am where upon seeing the size of the blip realizes that they were right and sounds the alarm. Now considering the time the alarm is raised what effect if any does this have on the attack?

[Platapus]

It would have had little effect.

The attack would have happened (nothing could have prevented it on 7 Dec after the Japanese aircraft took off. )

The US would still have declared war and still would have had the emotional motivation of a "sneak attack".

The actual amount of damage might be less. It is tough to tell how effective US pilots would have been against the attacking forces. The Japanese were expecting some US air cover so they would not have been totally surprised.

The outcome?

Perhaps a few less US ships sunk/damaged
Perhaps a few more Japanese aircraft shot down

But other than that, I don't see how history would have been changed.

Now if the scenario were changed to "what if the US carriers found the Japanese carriers before the attack" That might be interesting.

But 30-60 minute advance notice of the attack on PH probably would not have made much difference in the big picture.

[Dread Knot]

Pearl was home to quite a few Army and Marine air squadrons. With ample warning they could have kept the Zeroes busy and forced the Japanese to disperse their attacks. However, I think the greatest benefit would have been to the ships in port assuming they got the alert too.Watertight hatches would have been dogged, anti aircraft batteries would have been manned and ready. The crews would have been alert and not in a total state of panic and confusion although there would have been some. If I were Kimmel I would have probably forbade a sortie out of port. Warships sunk in shallow water are still a better bet for recovery than those at sea and with a few minutes warning you really can't get most boilers up to speed. Perhaps the Arizona would have been saved. In the actual attack most of the converted battleship shells the Japanese used as armor piercing bombs were duds anyway.

[Dread Knot]

It would have had little effect.



But other than that, I don't see how history would have been changed.

Now if the scenario were changed to "what if the US carriers found the Japanese carriers before the attack" That might be interesting.


If the US carriers then at sea had been in position to attack then it would be a toss up. If the Japanese spotted the American carriers then just as at Midway, they would be faced with the tactical dilemma of dealing with a carrier task force and a significant land based air contingent. As they found out at Midway, there is no easy solution to that. In addition, assuming the Japanese search doctrine was just as weak six months prior to Midway as it was at Midway, there is always the chance that the Americans would launch the first strike. Given what we now know about Japanese AA ability, fighter vectoring, ship design and doctrine, a two or three carrier American strike-even if poorly coordinated would have had a very good chance of hurting the Japanese fleet. Even a mutual strike might have been significant for the Allies given Japanese damage control and the fact that any damaged Japanese carrier would have been very far away from a suitable port of refuge.

Japan did have six carriers with highly trained crews and pilots but the fact remains that in air to air carrier combat, each side was totally inexperienced with no precedent to guide them. Just about anything could have happened.

[Oberon]

Ok and new the latest scenario for you guys to ponder over.(This one is sort of cliched but i've yet to see an alternate history where this was the PoD.) The date is December, 7th and Private Joseph L. Lockard and Private George Elliot are on duty at the Opana Radar Site. They're heading for breakfast soon when at 7:02 am something big starts to appear on the radar set. They inform Lt. Kermit Tyler who tells them not to worry as it's just a flight of B-17's coming from the mainland but they both insist it's way to big for it to be them. After some convincing Kermit comes and checks it out at 7:30 am where upon seeing the size of the blip realizes that they were right and sounds the alarm. Now considering the time the alarm is raised what effect if any does this have on the attack?

So, saying Kermit raises the alarm at around 7:30-7:35, that's approximately 23-18 minutes before Fuchida signals Totsugeki raigeki. I'd say that any warning would be negligible, if indeed it got to Pearl Harbor before the Japanese did which is extremely debatable. The US was still mostly on a peace-time footing and as such communications weren't as fast as they would become in war-time later, so perhaps it might have arrived at the same time as the Japanese declaration of war... :doh:

So, not a great deal really, IMHO at least. Perhaps a similar outcome to when Iba Field radar reported the Japanese raid incoming on Clark Field over an hour before they arrived, and yet the Japanese still managed to achieve tactical surprise.

[Admiral Halsey]

And this is why I love giving you guys these questions. It's nice to see the different opinions on them.

[Armistead]

The only real effect PH had was it started the war. If we knew they were coming most likely the ships would've been sent out. Many think that would've been doom, since we floated the old BB's, but I doubt near as many would've been lost had they gotten to the open ocean and ready for battle. Who can know the outcome if the carriers got involved, but they would've become prime targets and possibly sunk....Like it or not, the old BB's sunk really had no war value compared to the carriers...It was certainly better we were able to use our carriers at Midway with us having the advantage of surprise..

[Admiral Halsey]

Alright it's a new day and thus a new question for you guys. This one is a multi-question one so think hard. It's October 25, 1944 and the Battle off Samar has begun. Takeo Kurita has after the first few minutes of the battle realized that Halsey has left only some destroyers and some carriers that couldn't hurt a fly behind and isn't anywhere near the battle. My questions for you guys are these. 1. With Kurita realizing what he's actually facing at the moment does he still press on? 2. If he does press on how bad does the invasion force get mauled and does anyone significant die as a result? 3 What effect would this have on the overall strategic planning during the last year of the war? And finally 4. If Kurita leaves like he's supposed to after mauling the invasion fleet is Oldendorf able to seal off the exit and with Halsey charging back into the fight are they able to trap Kurita and annihilate him?

[MGR1]

May I recommend "Rising Sun Victorious", edited by Peter Tsouras?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rising-Sun-Victorious-Alternate-History/dp/0345490169

Some very interesting scenarios, particularly the ones covering a Japanese move against the Soviet Union rather than going south, December 7th where Kimmel and Short are better served by their subordinates and an excellent chapter covering the aftermath of a Pyrrhic Operation Downfall.

Mike.:)

[Dread Knot]

I think I'll just post what I said a few months ago on the subject. :D

Kurita was not on a suicide mission, so retreating after tangling with the Taffies seems to me to have been a very good move given what he knew about the circumstances. Kurita was the son of a imminent scholar on Bushido and was aware of how the Code of Bushido had been twisted by Japanese militarists. So sacrificing his squadron just for the sake of saving face, honor and following orders to the letter wasn't high on his priorities.

Imagine how it plays out if he stays and pushes through to the Leyte beach head. An hour to regain command and control of his scattered force, four hours to do a thorough job busting up command, control and cohesion of the Leyte invasion fleet. In that time, he winds up trapped between Halsey's CVs and BBs, Turner's BBs and CVEs, and can't sink enough of the invasion TF to substantially change the outcome. So he loses everything. Sinks maybe a dozen light vessels of the invasion task force, or else sinks maybe a dozen vessels in Taffy 2 and 3.

Given the already crushing disparity in ships and resources in favor of the Allies, it doesn't change the outcome of the campaign or the war an iota. You simply end up with a few less Japanese cruisers and battleships spending the last weeks of the war rusting in port due to lack of fuel and maintenance.

[Admiral Halsey]

I think I'll just post what I said a few months ago on the subject. :D

Kurita was not on a suicide mission, so retreating after tangling with the Taffies seems to me to have been a very good move given what he knew about the circumstances. Kurita was the son of a imminent scholar on Bushido and was aware of how the Code of Bushido had been twisted by Japanese militarists. So sacrificing his squadron just for the sake of saving face, honor and following orders to the letter wasn't high on his priorities.

Imagine how it plays out if he stays and pushes through to the Leyte beach head. An hour to regain command and control of his scattered force, four hours to do a thorough job busting up command, control and cohesion of the Leyte invasion fleet. In that time, he winds up trapped between Halsey's CVs and BBs, Turner's BBs and CVEs, and can't sink enough of the invasion TF to substantially change the outcome. So he loses everything. Sinks maybe a dozen light vessels of the invasion task force, or else sinks maybe a dozen vessels in Taffy 2 and 3.

Given the already crushing disparity in ships and resources in favor of the Allies, it doesn't change the outcome of the campaign or the war an iota. You simply end up with a few less Japanese cruisers and battleships spending the last weeks of the war rusting in port due to lack of fuel and maintenance.
Yeah I remember this. Doesn't answer two of the questions I asked this time though.(The effects it would have on Strategic planning after the battle ended and if anyone significant dies due to Kurita hitting the invasion fleet. Oh and this time he know's what he's facing during the battle.)

[Cybermat47]

Here's one:

Japan attacks Pearl Harbour, but Germany does not declare war on America in the aftermath.

[Admiral Halsey]

Here's one:

Japan attacks Pearl Harbour, but Germany does not declare war on America in the aftermath.

I swear there is a book written about just such a thing.

[Dread Knot]

Yeah I remember this. Doesn't answer two of the questions I asked this time though.(The effects it would have on Strategic planning after the battle ended and if anyone significant dies due to Kurita hitting the invasion fleet. Oh and this time he know's what he's facing during the battle.)

I can't answer as to whether anyone significant dies as it's all too speculative.

It would really hinge on Yamato and how well she shot, and what damage she took. She was really the only modern ship left in Kurita's squadron. If the US ships damage her fire control early on like Rodney did to Bismarck almost immediately, then she's not going to be effective and the Japanese are going to have a bad day. Same thing could happen in reverse. Land an 18" plunging salvo on the right place on Washington or a South Dakota and it might become the Arizona of the Philippines.

A Yamato dying fighting her own kind probably would have looked more legendary in the eyes of post war Japanese culture than Yamato dying fighting a swarm of US Navy planes. Perhaps there would have been even more Yamato anime and magna. :D

[Admiral Halsey]

Perhaps there would have been even more Yamato anime and magna. :D

Hopefully ones that don't put her into space.

[mapuc]

Alternate History isn't an exact science, no one really knows what could happen if.. You can estimate from some given historical events

Like what's would happen if USA went all in, in Vietnam or invaded Cuba during the Crisis?

There are also some very unlikely endings

Here's a such an endings

The American government get information about the attack on PH and understand that USA haven't got any military defense to prevent this, so they surrender before the war started and this day today USA is controlled by the Japanese ruler

This is very unlikely

Markus

[TarJak]

Or Ogg doesn't bang the rocks together and doesn't discover the secret of creating fire.

[mapuc]

Since I read this thread I knew I had read or heard about this subject before and today I remembered it.

Some years ago a danish science program had an issue about Counterfactual history. Those scientist toke this very serious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_history

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

Bit off topic but with all the thinking about the scenario I laid out for you guys made me think of a way to make the battleship movie good. First, get rid of the aliens. Second, have it be set in WW2. Third, have it start off with The Battle of Surigao Strait and then proceed to an alternare version of the Samar battle where Kurita mows down Taffy 3 and proceeds to inflict heavy damage to the invasion force before leaving. Fourth, have the climax of the battle be Kurita and his heavy's VS Oldendorf and the Pearl Harbor ships when Kurita tries to leave the way he came. Of course since this is a Hollywood movie Oldendorf will nearly lose when at the last minute Halsey's BB's finally arrive and blast Kurita out of the water. What do you guys think about that instead of what we actually got?

[TarJak]

Best way to make that POS good is to forget it ever got made and watch Sink The Bismarck instead.

[Cybermat47]

Here's one inspiredby Red October1984:

The United States takes over Mexico sometime between the American Civil War and 1900. What affect does this have on the First World War?

EDIT: Best way to make that POS good is to forget it ever got made and watch Sink The Bismarck instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEW9Q1kccTw

One of my favourite movies :up:

[Jimbuna]

Best way to make that POS good is to forget it ever got made and watch Sink The Bismarck instead.

That had me watch it again...most refreshing :cool:

[Dread Knot]

Here's one inspiredby Red October1984:

The United States takes over Mexico sometime between the American Civil War and 1900. What affect does this have on the First World War?



The bigger question in my mind is what effect does it have on the United states?

Mexico under US occupation would likely become the 19th century equivalent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip both at the same time. Mexico had major difficulties during this period ruling Mexico. The USA will have far greater problems ruling such a vast area with such a large population, a strong sense of national identify and a different language. Add the racism by whites that was rife towards Mexicans at the time and you have a real nasty mix. Not to mention what adding so many Catholics to a mostly Protestant nation would do. If the Indian Wars gave the US Army headaches, I can only imagine what tens of thousands of Mexican peasants could do.

At best it either becomes the US's Spanish Quebec, a highly independent and problematic region that somehow stays in the country, or at worst internal difficulties inspire a new nationalism that eventually causes the region to be granted independence or become independent again. Likely the latter.

About the wisest move in the Mexican War was the decision not to annex all of Mexico.

[Admiral Halsey]

Best way to make that POS good is to forget it ever got made and watch Sink The Bismarck instead.

I'm partial to the "Why We Fight" movies.

[TarJak]

They are ok but a bit parochial and propaganda filled for my taste.I prefer watching them without the soundtrack.

[Aktungbby]

Here's one inspiredby Red October1984:

The United States takes over Mexico sometime between the American Civil War and 1900. What affect does this have on the First World War?

The Zimmermann Note is addressed to the President, instead of El Excellente Presidente!:O: and MacArthur doesn't chase Pancho Villa! There are still Kosher Weiner dogs instead of 'Liberty' sausage...:rotfl2:

[Admiral Halsey]

They are ok but a bit parochial and propaganda filled for my taste.I prefer watching then without the soundtrack.

Eh they were made during the war so of course they'll be somewhat propaganda filled.

[Admiral Halsey]

I know it's a bit late for my next scenario. Still I think i've got a good one for you guys. Oh and yes this is a cliched one but it's still intriguing. In this scenario Operation Valkyrie succeeds and against all odds the conspirators are able to gain control of the government and convince Rommel to become the leader within a week.(Yeah unlikely I know but still possible.) My question to you guys is this. What happens once Rommel takes over and the effects it would have on the war and history?

[Admiral Halsey]

A little bump as I want to hear your guys opinions before I post the next scenario.

[Dread Knot]

I know it's a bit late for my next scenario. Still I think i've got a good one for you guys. Oh and yes this is a cliched one but it's still intriguing. In this scenario Operation Valkyrie succeeds and against all odds the conspirators are able to gain control of the government and convince Rommel to become the leader within a week.(Yeah unlikely I know but still possible.) My question to you guys is this. What happens once Rommel takes over and the effects it would have on the war and history?


No takers so far? :hmmm:

The fundamental problem with the von Stauffenberg plotters is that they were almost as out of touch with reality as Hitler and his cronies, and believed that they could make a separate peace with the Allies and continue the war on the eastern front against Poland and Soviet Union.

Both Stauffenberg and Goerdeler wrote down a list of demands to the Allies which included such things as right to continue to occupy Eastern Europe, and annex territory in the east up to 1914 border. They didn't want peace with the Soviets or Poland. They also wanted to keep Austria and Sudetenland. Additional points were about protection of war criminals (which is understandable since July 20th plot included numerous people implicated in war crimes and genocide). Demands the Allies would likely reject.

One shouldn't forget that July 20th was essentially a plot by conservative and nationalist elements in German military and some political elements fearing for loss to the Soviets. Any favorable result wouldn't mean a democratic Germany, but return to authoritarian and undemocratic traditions of militarized Prussian state (which was a lesser evil than Hitler's Germany, but historically problematic nevertheless), something that Allies feared and didn't want to see again. Unless they were willing to consider unconditional surrender I think the war goes on as before.

[Admiral Halsey]

Like I said though in this one they convince Rommel to take over as Führer and the allies respected him. I think he knew that a separate peace was never going to happen so my thinking is that he does something to get better peaceterms. I think he would've given them France and the low countries in exchange for keeping Poland. Plus i'm 99% sure he would've shut down the holocaust the moment he found out about it.

[Stealhead]

Like I said though in this one they convince Rommel to take over as Führer and the allies respected him. I think he knew that a separate peace was never going to happen so my thinking is that he does something to get better peaceterms. I think he would've given them France and the low countries in exchange for keeping Poland. Plus i'm 99% sure he would've shut down the holocaust the moment he found out about it.


The only problem with that is Germany loses all of the industrial capacity they gained by taking France not to mention the droves of French workers.Shutting down the infrastructure of the Holocaust alone would free up a massive amount of man power and transportation capacity of course that would take time.They could simply choose to do that and not need to make any deal with the western allies.

To a large extent Hitler's poor leadership helped Germany loose the war simply by removing him and having more sound thinking people making decisions I think would have had a notable effect at least on the length of the war.Hard to say though in 1944 the war was pretty solidly turning against Germany having any chance at a victory and that would make the Western Allies from making any deals why would they at that point they had the German military in full retreat such a point is not a juncture where you make a deal.

[Admiral Halsey]

I was kinda thinking that by making such an offer Rommel could drive a wedge between the Western allies and the USSR. I know that if he gave them an offer like that Roosevelt and Churchill would've jumped at the opportunity to end the war then and there especially once the public heard the Germans gave them such an offer.(Though it might have taken a month or two considering the censorship back then.) While Stalin wanted to crush Germany at that point and thus would've said no deal. Once that happens you could chart a 1000 different paths history could've taken.

[mapuc]

We must remember that the Allies demanded an inevitably surrender. Therefore, the new German government would not achieve much with this attempt to get a a ceasefire.

Markus

[Raptor1]

I can't see the Western Allies accepting such an offer. They had already decided to fight Germany until it accepted unconditional surrender and a leadership change alone wouldn't cause them to suddenly be willing to accept separate peace under less favourable terms. Even if they did for some reason, the threat that Germany would collapse on the Eastern Front (a process which was well underway by that point) and subsequently be completely overrun by the Soviet Union would, I think, have alone caused the Western Allies to remain in the war until the end.

[Admiral Halsey]

You guys do have good points. I guess in the end the biggest difference would be that Rommel would've stopped the holocaust the moment he heard about it.

[mapuc]

You guys do have good points. I guess in the end the biggest difference would be that Rommel would've stopped the holocaust the moment he heard about it.


Let say Germany got a ceasefire with the allied before the war against Russia started

This leave a bigger question- How would the future be after that?

Germany would still be under Nazis control.

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

Let say Germany got a ceasefire with the allied before the war against Russia started

This leave a bigger question- How would the future be after that?

Germany would still be under Nazis control.

Markus

This question doesn't answer something though. Does Hitler still declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor? Either way they're still doomed if Hitler invades the Soviet Union without giving his troops winter clothing.

[Stealhead]

Personally I find it very difficult to believe that any German in a position of power did not know about the holocaust not to say that they agreed or disagreed but they had to have known.They may not have known the full details but they knew something.

The ultimate issue would have been the timing by summer of 1944 the writing was on the wall and this would make a deal very unlikely.The western allies did not trust the Soviets but rightfully considered a belligerent Germany to be a much more immediate threat.The last war proved that a total victory was the only option.

[Admiral Halsey]

Ok tune for the new scenario. I;m going to keep this short and sweet. In this scenario the Zimmermann Telegram is not deciphered and when the US declares war on Germany Mexico joins with Germany.

[Stealhead]

The Mexican invasion would be crushed by the US military and the many armed citizens living in Texas,New Mexico and Arizona.Even if by some miracle they managed to take territory they'd pay in an unbelievable amount of blood trying to control it.

Mexico was too unstable at the time to get involved in a foreign war.For the Zimmerman Telegram to be a feasibility first the Mexican Revolution would have not have occurred and the Germans would need some way to easily supply the Mexican military with arms.Ideally the Germans would need some troops and a guy like Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck to lead the Mexicans then they could have caused some real problems.Most likely never take much US territory but they could tie up many US troops in Northern Mexico.

[Admiral Halsey]

The Mexican invasion would be crushed by the US military and the many armed citizens living in Texas,New Mexico and Arizona.

Probably more of the latter then the former at least at the start.

[Cybermat47]

Ok tune for the new scenario. I;m going to keep this short and sweet. In this scenario the Zimmermann Telegram is not deciphered and when the US declares war on Germany Mexico joins with Germany.

America defeats Mexico, but the war in France lasts longer.

[Admiral Halsey]

Ok time for another new one. The year is 1864 and General "Baldy" Smith is just outside of Petersburg, Virginia. As we all should know, in our timeline Baldy had the perfect opportunity to seize Petersburg but lost his nerve. In this scenario the moment he finds out the fortifications are only manned with artillery he attacks. Starting from there give me a timeline up to the 1864 election.

[Admiral Halsey]

No one wants to take a stab at this one?

[Admiral Halsey]

Really? This scenario intrigues no one?

[mapuc]

No one wants to take a stab at this one?

History is one of my favorite especially WWII(Europe) and the American Civil War

It's been a while since i read about the civil war. Your task, you gave us, made my brain crash(still coming smoke out of my ears)

Markus

[Dread Knot]

Starting from there give me a timeline up to the 1864 election.

I can't say I can really provide you with a timeline.

In summary, I can say if the attack is successful and Petersburg taken, the war would have been materially shortened, as Lee's whole position becomes rapidly untenable. His only supply link to the lower south gets cut, and the pivot of his defensive position is shattered. If he is very fast, and VERY lucky, he can withdraw his army to the west, but this pretty much leads to the same result as occurred after the battle at Five Forks...mass desertions, surrender and defeat.

The CSA would be in better shape than they were in springtime of 1865, so it might take a bit of time, but it is extremely unlikely that the Confederacy would survive much past the early autumn. So, a war that with competent Union generalship from the start could have ended in 1862, ends in 1864.

[Admiral Halsey]

I can't say I can really provide you with a timeline.

In summary, I can say if the attack is successful and Petersburg taken, the war would have been materially shortened, as Lee's whole position becomes rapidly untenable. His only supply link to the lower south gets cut, and the pivot of his defensive position is shattered. If he is very fast, and VERY lucky, he can withdraw his army to the west, but this pretty much leads to the same result as occurred after the battle at Five Forks...mass desertions, surrender and defeat.

The CSA would be in better shape than they were in springtime of 1865, so it might take a bit of time, but it is extremely unlikely that the Confederacy would survive much past the early autumn. So, a war that with competent Union generalship from the start could have ended in 1862, ends in 1864.

Thanks. Hmmm that gives me in interesting thought for my next scenario which i'll post right now. The year is 1861 and President Lincoln has just offered Robert. E. Lee complete control of the Union army. However his home state of Virginia has just voted to secede and after much praying he decides that the oath he took to protect the Union is more important then not wanting to fight against Virginia. With that knowledge when does the war end and what battles if any that the Union army historically lost are either avoid or won? My two cents is that Lee doesn't wilt to political pressure and avoids First Bull Run at least.

[Dread Knot]

Thanks. Hmmm that gives me in interesting thought for my next scenario which i'll post right now. The year is 1861 and President Lincoln has just offered Robert. E. Lee complete control of the Union army. However his home state of Virginia has just voted to secede and after much praying he decides that the oath he took to protect the Union is more important then not wanting to fight against Virginia. With that knowledge when does the war end and what battles if any that the Union army historically lost are either avoid or won? My two cents is that Lee doesn't wilt to political pressure and avoids First Bull Run at least.


One thing to bear in mind is that Lee's track record on the offense was mixed. He failed in in West Virginia as well as the Maryland and Gettysburg Campaigns. The only general he managed to beat by taking the offensive was McClellan and that involved some heavy causalities the CSA could ill afford.

That being said, the big advantage he might have over other men who held the top Union command in Virginia was his personality. He had a knack of being able to persuade political leaders to see things his way. So instead of being forced to march on Richmond in 1861 with a virtually untrained and undisciplined mob, like Irvin McDowell was forced to do, Lee gets the time he needs to get his army properly organized and trained before he sets out on his march to Richmond. This, in and of itself, means he is more likely to win once battle is joined. An early capture of Richmond might not immediately end the war, but it would pretty much end any hope of European recognition...any nation which can't defend it's own capital is going to be seen as a sinking ship. And without the hope of European recognition, I think the war ends pretty quickly.
　

[Admiral Halsey]

One thing to bear in mind is that Lee's track record on the offense was mixed. He failed in in West Virginia as well as the Maryland and Gettysburg Campaigns. The only general he managed to beat by taking the offensive was McClellan and that involved some heavy causalities the CSA could ill afford.

That being said, the big advantage he might have over other men who held the top Union command in Virginia was his personality. He had a knack of being able to persuade political leaders to see things his way. So instead of being forced to march on Richmond in 1861 with a virtually untrained and undisciplined mob, like Irvin McDowell was forced to do, Lee gets the time he needs to get his army properly organized and trained before he sets out on his march to Richmond. This, in and of itself, means he is more likely to win once battle is joined. An early capture of Richmond might not immediately end the war, but it would pretty much end any hope of European recognition...any nation which can't defend it's own capital is going to be seen as a sinking ship. And without the hope of European recognition, I think the war ends pretty quickly.
　


The Maryland Campaign was lost due to the lost order. If he could've fought McClellan without him having that order McClellan would've lost. AS for Gettysburg it was a combination of him being sick, J.E.B. Stuart gallivanting in places he wasn't supposed to and failing to give Lee the info he needed, and Meade not being able to assert himself in time for the battle thus letting his Generals doing most of the fighting. But you are right about the fact he always seemed to take the higher causality count no matter if he won or lost.

[Dread Knot]

Lee was a ferocious defender. If had ever gotten as close to Richmond as McClellan did in 1862 with the large army he did, I don't think there is a Southern general who could have shifted him.

In addition, Lee as a born and bred Southerner, would have know that the inflated Confederate Army numbers being reported by Pinkerton and his agents were sheer nonsense.

[Admiral Halsey]

Lee was a ferocious defender. If had ever gotten as close to Richmond as McClellan did in 1862 with the large army he did, I don't think there is a Southern general who could have shifted him.

Worst comes to worst he just starts sieging the place.

[Aktungbby]

Ok time for another new one. The year is 1864 and General "Baldy" Smith is just outside of Petersburg, Virginia. As we all should know, in our timeline Baldy had the perfect opportunity to seize Petersburg but lost his nerve. In this scenario the moment he finds out the fortifications are only manned with artillery he attacks. Starting from there give me a timeline up to the 1864 election.

No difference on Lincoln's relection as the soldiers of the Army of the Potomac had become grimly determined to end the war under leadership they now perceived as 'up to it" especially after the Wilderness as, defeated, the march still resumed South-easterly toward Richmond and the troops were aware of Grant's implacable will. Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor notwithstanding, and the Richmond Railroad chief, a secret Union sympathizer, notwithstanding, Lee bugs out with his still conditioned, able to march units,( the legendary foot cavalry) and joins with Joe Johnston's southern army. They range the Appalachian areas and resort to Moseby style warfare and the war drags on. Lee was actually encouraged to do this past Saylors Creek when the army was cut in half and his precious rations had been 'misdirected' by the railroad chief, compelling the final scenario at Appomatox after 3 days of too long entrenched, out-of-shape infantry not eating for three days. Their frenetic march to the misplaced rations was cut off by none other than Maj. Gen. George Armstrong Custer, having his best day since stopping Stewart cold at Gettysburg; and walking off with the table Lee and Grant had signed the surrender instrument on. The first offer of Grant's redemption were the rations to Lee's starving army. Lee deserves more credit for not resorting to guerilla warfare and ending it at Appomatox.

[Aktungbby]

The only general he managed to beat by taking the offensive was McClellan. You're overlooking Pope at Second Manassas; Hooker at Chancellorsville and Burnsides at Fredericksburg(technically defensive but why interrupt your enemy when he's screwing up); Actually his final assault in the Seven Days last battle, (Malvern Hill) was a disaster(5,600 casualties out of 30,000) that even Stonewall Jackson deemed it pure murder against a prepared Union hill position with Henry Hill's massed artillery. McClellan, ever thinking himself outnumbered, thanks to Pinkerton, chose to withdraw upon his supply base, but need not have done so. Lee's poor intelligence precipitated the slaughter, McClellan's compelled retreat. Lee would replicate this at the accidental engagement of Gettysburg again against Henry Hill's artillery at the raised position of Cemetery Ridge on the third day...again due to bad intelligence and frontal tactics. This time it was Longstreet who deemed it murder...As for the capitol at Richmond, Lee famously said he would 'trade Queens' if the Union threatened Richmond during his advance north. As with Lincoln, only the army in the field mattered; capitols could be re-situated at New York or the original Montgomery AL if needed. In any case, the search for a second Saratoga to bring a wary England alliance was crushed inexorably by Lincoln's astuteness and political use of the tactical draw of Sharpsburg in 1862(Antietam to the DamnYankees) in issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. No European power with nascent labor movements of the Industrial Revolution would aid a slaveocracy. Egyptian long-strand cotton would fill the mills of Victorian England's industries just as nicely.

[Armistead]

Lee was a master of setting up the defensive line, then looking for an offensive flank strike, but as in war his officers often didn't take advantage.

I don't see Lee doing much better at Bull Run if he was the Union General commanding, both armies and officers still green.

[Admiral Halsey]

Alright time for a new one. In this scenario Hitler launches Operation Barbarossa two weeks earlier then he actually did thus enabling him to capture Moscow. My question is this. Does this give him victory on the Eastern Front or does he still end up losing?

[Aktungbby]

Alright time for a new one. In this scenario Hitler launches Operation Barbarossa two weeks earlier then he actually did thus enabling him to capture Moscow. My question is this. Does this give him victory on the Eastern Front or does he still end up losing?

He still loses! As Napoleon B. proved, taking Moscow solves nothing; General Winter still prevails in the end as your troops are still not winter equipped and do not take Leningrad to the north or Stalingrad to the south setting up a tremendous pincer which the Russians are superb at under Zhukov with armies from the Mongolian front.:hmph:

[Dread Knot]

Alright time for a new one. In this scenario Hitler launches Operation Barbarossa two weeks earlier then he actually did thus enabling him to capture Moscow. My question is this. Does this give him victory on the Eastern Front or does he still end up losing?

That's a tricky one. An earlier May invasion would've run smack dab into the middle of the infamous Russian rasputitsa, or mud season. All unpaved roads would've been impassable to German armored and mechanized convoys, to say nothing of horse drawn logistic columns. Meanwhile, the Soviets would still be able to shuttle troops, artillery, tanks, and supplies forward by train. It could have taken the sting out of some of the dramatic early German advances and given the Russians time to recover.

[Oberon]

Got to agree with the above two, it's not necessarily a certainty that starting Barbarossa a fortnight earlier would guarantee a capture of Moscow. Running straight into the rasputitsa would have slowed the advance significantly, in fact Hitler was a little lucky with Barbarossa in the summer as it was a warmer summer than usual and the rivers were lower which helped crossings.
The main problem facing Army Group Center as it approached Moscow was not so much the approaching winter although that was the coup de grace, but that it was at the very edge of its operational ability, losses had been disasterous and replacements and supplies were not arriving fast enough to replenish it because of the problem of getting supplies from the railheads to the front, not to mention the gauge difference and repairing the damage from the scorched earth policy. Army Group Center had advanced too far too fast and was paying the price for it.
Meanwhile in the Soviet Union, the Siberian reserves had been released, and more aid was coming in from the United Kingdom and America.

Even, if by some quirk of war, the Germans had managed to advance further and reach Moscow, it would have been a disaster for them, Stalingrad was showing that the Soviets excelled at close quarter combat, and Leningrad was showing their resilience under siege, so no matter what Army Group Center did it would fail. If it encircled Moscow and beseiged it, then the Moscow defenders would hold until the inevitable breakthrough and resupply by the fresh Siberian recruits, who would take the opportunity to smash a hole in the overstretched German frontlines.
But if Army Group Center decided to fight its way into Moscow, then it would have been a long, disasterous and bloody battle that would have made Stalingrad look like a picnic, and at the end of it the Red Army would still have won. As Franz Halder, chief of the OKH wrote in his diary in 1941:

The whole situation makes it increasingly plain that we have underestimated the Russian colossus...[Soviet] divisions are not armed and equipped according to our standards, and their tactical leadership is often poor. But there they are, and as we smash a dozen of them the Russians simply put up another dozen. The time factor favours them, as they are near their own resources, while we are moving farther and farther away from ours. And so our troops, sprawled over the immense front line, without depth, are subject to the incessant attacks of the enemy

[Stealhead]

Even, if by some quirk of war, the Germans had managed to advance further and reach Moscow, it would have been a disaster for them, Stalingrad was showing that the Soviets excelled at close quarter combat,


Indeed they did the fact that they where still using a spike style semi-permanent bayonet on the Mosin-Nagant 91/30's right through the end of the war shows that the Soviet/Russian military doctrine was still a firm believer in up close and personal hand to hand combat.It actually makes good sense given the technology at the time the odds of training a conscript to be a skilled marksman in a short period of time are low the odds that you can train a conscript to thrust and stab and bash a head in are pretty high.

I personally feel that an invasion of the Soviet Union at that time would always fail sooner or later there is simply too much land to cover too many out of reach places for the Soviets to gather in.The initial invasion was a shock to the Soviet Union and that helped the Germans at first.Even the Soviet units that got encircled in 1941 managed to delay the Germans enough to have an effect.

Another often ignored yet extremely vital delaying effort was the Battle for Crimea in 41-42 this was far more costly to the Germans and took much more man power than had been planned.In Western thinking it gets over looked which is a shame because it most certainly helped the Soviet war effort and hindered the German war effort.

I think that the Germans got blinded by their success in western Europe and their initial success against the Soviets they where so blinded by their success when things started to turn it is as if they just ignored the situation and kept going as if nothing had changed.they did not respect their enemy which is always a fatal mistake.

[Aktungbby]

Got to agree with the above two, As Franz Halder, chief of the OKH wrote in his diary in 1941: Hmmm...If OKW's Herr Halder is wondering about the Russian Colossus, to the east, and IJN chief ADM Yamamoto is wondering about "waking a Sleeping Giant", to the west, Then in terms of time and terrain, the only two elements of combat that matter, the war is already lost as for Germany the war wasn't supposed to start until 1945(U-Boot-wise) and the world conquering AXIS is clearly out of kilter from the get-go! They can't hold their terrain and they never had the time factor down after the premature ignition of Poland..

Another often ignored yet extremely vital delaying effort was the Battle for Crimea in 41-42 this was far more costly to the Germans and took much more man power than had been planned. effort. Yup: Victory fever is a real killer. The Sebastopol/Crimean campaign was a real time/terrain right flank diversion to the main task at hand; for the oilfields which too was an unnecessary waste of time and terrain as Speer's synthetic oil and the Rumanian (Ploesti)oil were actually sufficient. The de-panzering of the main southern thrust through Stalingrad was the disastrous result. As with the first Little Corporal, The Bavarian Little Corporal liked his glittering baubles and grasped at straws. Both lost their careers and their lives to General Winter...:salute:

[Oberon]

Hmmm...If OKW's Herr Halder is wondering about the Russian Colossus, to the east, and IJN chief ADM Yamamoto is wondering about "waking a Sleeping Giant", to the west, Then in terms of time and terrain, the only two elements of combat that matter, the war is already lost as for Germany the war wasn't supposed to start until 1945(U-Boot-wise) and the world conquering AXIS is clearly out of kilter from the get-go! They can't hold their terrain and they never had the time factor down after the premature ignition of Poland..

Starting on a slight side note, Yamamoto never actually said (that we know of) about 'waking a Sleeping Giant' :03: It's commonly but erronously attributed to him, the closest quote to it though is:

""A military man can scarcely pride himself on having 'smitten a sleeping enemy'; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten. I would rather you made your appraisal after seeing what the enemy does, since it is certain that, angered and outraged, he will soon launch a determined counterattack."

Either which way, his thoughts about war with America were bang on the money, and it's a shame that he was killed because he would have made for some fascinating post-war interviews.

Getting back to the theatre of operations at hand, I've often said that the greatest weapon the Allies had in World War II was Adolf Hitler. He may have been a very sly and potent political player, but he was a military and diplomatic n00b. The clock started ticking when Germany remilitarised the Rhineland and thus set France against her. Then, by taking Czechoslovakia she set Britain firmly against her, and thus by the time Poland came around there was no chance of Germany facing anything but hostility from Britain and France.
It's sometimes said that if Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union would have invaded Germany, and there is some evidence to support this, although how aware Hitler was of this possibility when drawing up Barbarossa is also debatable. However by dividing Poland between Russia and Germany, Hitler basically made a Soviet-Germany conflict inevitable. It had been stated in Mein Kampf that the future of Germany "has to lie in the acquisition of land in the East at the expense of Russia."
If Germany had bided its time and worked diplomatically to stir up hatred of communism (as well as the inevitable antisemitism), then it might have been able to get Britain behind it, and perhaps America in the later stages of the conflict, Poland could have been leant on to join the anti-comintern forces and Germany would have had a jumping off point closer to Moscow and without having to fight a war on two fronts. However, Hitler went in all guns blazing, remilitarized the Rhineland and built up the German armed forces, panicking Britain and France, then took big bites out of most of the nations around him, angering Britain and France, and then urinated on the Munich agreement and marched into Poland, making war with Britain and France (and thus eventually America) practically inevitable, and with those forces arrayed against him, and Russia waiting to pounce, defeat was pretty much certain and all that remained was how long it took. In fact, it's a credit to the generals, admirals and civil servants of the Reich that it was able to last for six years at war against most of the planet.

[Stealhead]

Then in terms of time and terrain, the only two elements of combat that matter, the war is already lost as for Germany the war wasn't supposed to start until 1945.

Yup: Victory fever is a real killer. The Sebastopol/Crimean campaign was a real time/terrain right flank diversion to the main task at hand; for the oilfields which too was an unnecessary waste of time and terrain as Speer's synthetic oil and the Rumanian (Ploesti)oil were actually sufficient. The de-panzering of the main southern thrust through Stalingrad was the disastrous result.

Never heard that before care to provide a source for this as this is news to me.My understanding is that Germany was always a little tight when it came to oil and that with Polesti and the synthetic production they had just enough.

Even if they did the failure to capture any major Russian oil fields even if just long enough to get say one full years production (which would be a pretty good amount of oil) that reserve would have done them well once Rumania switched sides in summer 1944.

The lose of Ploiesti caused much trouble for Germany it just seems odd that in a matter of months after that supply was gone they where pushing fighters to the run way rather than taxi them to conserve fuel and the desperate attempt to get to fuel supplies during the Ardennes all of that and the fact that in most areas Germany was able actually to increase productions rates for much of the last year of fighting there synthetic oil production seemed not to keep up.

I reference this article notabley the chart near the bottom https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee120/node/242. (https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee120/node/242.A) a sharp reduction in oil production of all types form Q2 1944 to the end of the war.Now some of this is of course do to lose of Polesti of course that was not gone until august 1944 and the decline starts in Q21944.Notice also that synthetic production also dropped from Q21944 onwards.Some of this is of course due to increased bombing still though it also shows that the synthetic production was no where near enough to permit unhindered military operations.

Perhaps sufficient enough(just) to prevent an oil crisis until the die was cast for the most part anyway.Also it should be taken into consideration that the campaigns in 39-41 netted Germany a pretty good supply of oil by capturing national stocks which they made good use of.

[Admiral Halsey]

Glad to see this scenario has brought out so many opinions.(Even if they all basically say the same thing.)

[Aktungbby]

Never heard that before care to provide a source for this as this is news to me.My understanding is that Germany was always a little tight when it came to oil and that with Polesti and the synthetic production they had just enough...campaigns in 39-41 netted Germany a pretty good supply of oil by capturing national stocks which they made good use of. My apology for some unclarity: the oil issue as of 1942 from all sources including synthetic was 'a little tight but ample' for Barbarossa which is what I'm responding to here. The fatal diversion to the Baku oil was an unrecoverable blunder as was the battle of Stalingrad itself...simply because it was named after the Communist dictator and Adolph insisted! The predominantly horse drawn Wehrmacht could do with what it had. As the war progressed and the overly DOUHET influenced airmen of the mighty (Masters of the Air) Eighth Air Force, for example, gave up on disastrous 'glory' targets like Ploesti, Schweinfurt (or the British Ruhr Dams); Ploesti was never put out of commission until overrun by the communists in 1944. Of the 178 Liberators, only 30 were airworthy by mission's end with 48 lost completely! The problem with the Nazi war machine wasn't in the dispersed oil sources, real or synthetic, but in the vast transportation network to get it to the military units needing it! The Allies literally 'got good' at their jobs and destroyed the transport network and the oil facilities relentlessly and ingloriously...after 1942. It helped that aluminum was added to torpex for a bigger bang too! Had the Fuhrer stuck to plan A of his Southern Group thrust, making sure of Stalingrad, the Crimea would have necessarily 'fallen to the spear' as easy pickings as a mop up. But the transport for that fuel, as well, would have been compromised...by air supremacy of the Soviets.

[Aktungbby]

Starting on a slight side note, Yamamoto never actually said (that we know of) about 'waking a Sleeping Giant' :03: It's commonly but erronously attributed to him, the closest quote to it though is: Jeeze ya' can't even trust the movies(TORA TORA TORA) :doh:any more! I'm 'smitten' by the Foxworthiness of your "Hitler as ally" observation! We could have hosed him with a Lightning P-38, an already proven long-range assassin of Yamamoto:x:dead:, as he ambled to his teahouse at der Berchesgaden in the Obersälzberg. But if your reading his mail in real time on Enigma, you do find out who your inept friends really are and 'you never interrupt your enemy in the middle of his mistake!':03:

[Cybermat47]

America loses the War of Independance.

What affect does this have on history, up to the modern day?

[Admiral Halsey]

America loses the War of Independance.

What affect does this have on history, up to the modern day?

You're posing a question that has ramifications that touch nearly every nation on this planet and is also a "not for the faint of heart" question.

[Cybermat47]

You're posing a question that has ramifications that touch nearly every nation on this planet and is also a "not for the faint of heart" question.

Hopefully I'll get some interesting answers :)

[Stealhead]

Hopefully I'll get some interesting answers :)


The United Kingdom is defeated by the French in 1805 after a long war with the French which began a year after the War for Independence starts.The French ruse the UK into a non aggression treaty just as the war in the colonies start.Of course the real plan is to allow the British to send most of their forces to America.

In the first months of the so called "War to get pay back for the Battle of Agincourt"(Guerre pour obtenir remboursement de la bataille d'Azincourt).The French Navy crushes the Royal Navy in decisive battle thus preventing the British from getting their troops out of North America.The British kept fighting both wars hoping that the Scottish people would also rise up against the French.Sadly for the UK the Scottish realizing that they would have to wait until 2014 to vote for independence decide to side with the French.After a few months the Scots realize that the French are more annoying and side against both the French and the Brittish.The Scots kick the French out of England and take over.The English troops stuck in America now have nothing better to do so they decide to help found the United States of Britain.

The French try several times to take Scottish controlled England but fail every time because along the English coast(except Whales) in strategic positions are giant haggis launching catapults and massive brigades of poorly trained bag pipe players which manage to keep the French at bay.

Australia becomes a fancy tourist destination.

As a result of this shift in history Dr.Who does not get created.

[Admiral Halsey]

As a result of this shift in history Dr.Who does not get created.

I'm probably the only person who's ok with that.

[Stealhead]

I'm probably the only person who's ok with that.


:haha: I know Oberon would be most displeased with this alternate history.

I used to watch it as a kid with my brothers on PBS back in the 80's my mother used to watch Master Piece Theater and Are you Being Served?.Back in those days it was the old TV antenna or nothing they did not run cable out in the sticks back then.

[Dread Knot]

As a result of this shift in history Dr.Who does not get created.

Exterminate! Exterminate! :D

[Oberon]

:haha: I know Oberon would be most displeased with this alternate history.

I used to watch it as a kid with my brothers on PBS back in the 80's my mother used to watch Master Piece Theater and Are you Being Served?.Back in those days it was the old TV antenna or nothing they did not run cable out in the sticks back then.

:haha: Great Scott, or perhaps that should be Great Scot! :03:

In all seriousness though, if the 1776 war had failed, then you can bet your bottom dollar (literally) that there would have been another around the Napoleonic wars, and that would not have failed because we wouldn't have been willing to sacrifice the UK for a colony. Just not British. :haha: The overextension would have been horrid though, and so the Peninsula war would perhaps have been delayed or cancelled, but Boney would still likely have gone off to wander in the Russian wilderness. In turn this could butterfly the Spanish Constitution of 1812 which would have interesting effects for European liberalism in the future.
So, the founding fathers, if they survived the failed uprising of 1776 would probably be called the 'First Patriots' or something like that, and you'd have a different line up at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, but it would still get signed, and perhaps with more favourable terms to the fledgling American state, given that Britain would be facing a war on two fronts if it declined their demands, France would gleefully aid the Americans in any way it could, but I doubt the Americans would take any particular side in the Napoleonic war, preferring instead to focus on their independence.
Alternatively, Britain could have a moment of madness and focus all their efforts on crushing the Americans, leading to the French invading the UK, and Britain reforming itself in America, and then going on to invade Japan in 1955 and rename it Area 11.

[Dread Knot]

America loses the War of Independance.

What affect does this have on history, up to the modern day?


There are almost too many butterfly wings flapping to say how this comes out but in my opinion, there is a very good chance that at some point the colonists would have rebelled again, possibly around the turn of the century, or maybe earlier. I can see resentment of Britain smoldering, only to burst into flame again, if Britain had won. This assumes that Britain continues with similar policies to those that had been pursued before the war for dealing with the colonies. I think that the rekindling would happen even more quickly if a victorious Britain adopted draconian punitive policies toward the colonies, which seems more or less likely. You may also have the defeated rebels trying to set up a state of their own in unsettled land west of the Appalachians from which to continue the rebellion.

Would the French Revolution taken place without the successful example seen in America? This is relevant I think, because no French Revolution, very possibly no Napoleon Bonaparte. If the French Revolution happens regardless of what has occurred in America, then Bonaparte would likely look to the defeated Americans as allies against Britain, which brings us back to a second uprising in America around the turn of the century. Would Mexico have rebelled against Spain with the example of a US revolution? A North America without Mexico would look a lot different too.

[Admiral Halsey]

There are almost too many butterfly wings flapping to say how this comes out

I know. This is one of those questions that people write books about.

[Raptor1]

Would the French Revolution taken place without the successful example seen in America? This is relevant I think, because no French Revolution, very possibly no Napoleon Bonaparte. If the French Revolution happens regardless of what has occurred in America, then Bonaparte would likely look to the defeated Americans as allies against Britain, which brings us back to a second uprising in America around the turn of the century. Would Mexico have rebelled against Spain with the example of a US revolution? A North America without Mexico would look a lot different too.

This is the main question here, I think. For America itself, I can definitely see it still gaining independence further down to line regardless of defeat in the initial war, possibly through continued resistance or another war, but I think the longer-term repercussions would have been felt in Europe. A lot of the factors leading up to the French Revolution were tied to both the success of the American Revolution and France's involvement with it. Even if the French Revolution were to still happen but at a different time, it could change the conditions which allowed Napoleon to take power, fight his campaigns and eventually be defeated. Without these events taking place, the balance of power in Europe could have ended up vastly different to that which was established in 1815. As a result, the history of Europe for the rest of the 19th century (and beyond) would likely have looked much different, with major events, like Prussia's defeat of Austria in 1866 and eventual unification of Germany, which had roots in this balance of power likely taking vastly different turns than they historically did.

Generally, though, I think it's too hard to make any sort of accurate predictions for this sort of question. It would perhaps be possible if we had a very detailed answer to how exactly this American defeat had occurred, but other than that the American Revolutionary War is just too big an event to just ask "what if not?" about.

[u crank]

I think that the other possibility to consider is the forming of a number of individual countries within the land mass of the present day USA. Some may have been allied with Britain, there were Loyalists, and others may have been in rebellion. Then there is the possibility that these countries would go to war with each other for control of land and resourses. A pre Civil War of sorts. Then there is Alaska. What would the present day North America be like if Alaska remained a Russian territory? The same questions could be asked about Hawaii. If America had never become a Super power.....:hmmm:

[Dread Knot]

I know. This is one of those questions that people write books about.


In 1973 there was a novel published on the subject called For The Want of A Nail.

In the book, General Burgoyne won at Saratoga and the American fight for independence sputters out.

The later parts of the timeline get really bizarre and speculative and seem a bit dated now, but the opening phases of it are really quite interesting--the American Revolutionary diehards go to Texas, Vermont is unsafe for the Brits for decades, the invention of the cotton gin still results in increased slavery, but it's eventual abolition as well. In the end we get a sort of mega-Anglo North America.

[Dread Knot]

Here's the link. Sometimes I forget everything is in the Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail_(novel)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cb/For_Want_of_a_Nail_Cover.jpg

[Aktungbby]

In 1973 there was a novel published on the subject called For The Want of A Nail.
In the book, General Burgoyne won at Saratoga and the American fight for independence sputters out.

Interesting but the question is somewhat improperly formed as it is based on the American myopic 'blow your own horn version of events' and not the whole situation. There was no American Revolution but rather a continuation of the 'fait accompli' of a 3000 mile pond which removed direct and unimposable English control of the colonies as a result. Washington, ever the surveyor-plantation manager-Lt. Colonel of militia, had his greatest day when ADM Le Comte de Grasse showed in American waters to completely redirect the strategic course of the war away FROM Washington's narrow focus on regaining New York to the Virginia Capes. As always, the strategy of the sea supercedes the tactics on land and the never ending 300 year war of the French and English Navies spawned the bastard child of the American nation. Cornwallis, lured to Yorktown and trapped by the French fleet in one of history's pivotal sea battles against Hood and Rodney, surrendered and the disaster against non-WASP little brown people began in earnest. With or without a naval victory at Yorktown, the great engine of Scotch-Irish escapist 'manifest destiny' would have still prevailed along the great channel of the Missouri to the Pacific and beyond. And probably with little rancor as evidenced by the world's longest undefended border with British Canada. After the initial setback of Braddock's defeat along the Monongahela, in a war accidentally re-started by young George Washington near present day Pittsburg, even army wagon driver Daniel Boone saw the light and headed for Kentucky...well clear of 'King and Country' and progressed well into his eighties into Missouri as well. The WASP killing machine, now reinforced by an industrial-military complex the Romans would envy, is temporarily bogged down in Afghanistan...as it considers its next new world order target...probably the newly expansionist 'yellow peril' claiming Japanese, Vietnamese, and Philippino fishing privileges in the South China Sea, while stopping our cruisers in international waters. It's 1812 all over again in 2014! We will rush to assist our dear SEATO allies in tried and true old Roman pretext fashion. And just so we're not out of style, We need to reactivate The New Jersey, Iowa(one turret short) and Missouri, paint 'em white and do a little Teddy R. gunboat diplomacy...By Jingo! Let 'em stop those three in-line-ahead for an ID check.:x:oops::dead:!!!

[mapuc]

Here's a new one for you

What if Private Henry Tandey shot Adolf in WWI precisely on September 28, 1918 how would the worlds history have been after that.

Would we have a WWII after all but with some other country or countries starting it? Or

Got the idea after have read an article about a book "The Man Who Didn’t Kill Adolf Hitler"

Markus

[Aktungbby]

Ernst Röhm, Herr Goebbles, Himmler and Herman Göering would have filled the bill quite nicely! Actually there is considerable controversy over the battlefield meeting ever taking place. The Green Howards and the 16 th Reserve Bavarian Regiment were in proximity twice; in 1914 at Ypres and in 1918 in the Wyschaete sector near Marcoing. The famous painting of Tandy which Hitler obtained in 1937 and the story related to Chamberlain at the Berchesgaden was not of the event in 1918 in which Hitler was 'spared'. Hitler's regiment had moved to the area on 9/17/1918... but Hitler was on leave from 9/10 until 9/27 and in transit on 9/28 the date of Tandy's VC winning heroics enroute to his becoming the highest decorated soldier in the British Army. Major Roger Chapman of the Green Howards has it undeniably that the two highly decorated soldiers were face to face; Lt Col Neil McIntosh: Green Howards Museum Curator has it "complete Hog Wash!". Rank hath its privileges! In any case, the 16th Reserve Bavarians were 50 miles from Marcoing:hmmm:. Of more interest is the completely banal, almost irrelevant turn history took when, according to Shirer's account in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: Hitler's abusive father, illigitimate Aloïs SCHICKLGRÜBER, (his mother's maiden name) was legally recognized and made heir to his uncle's estate, Johann George HEIDLER, shortened to Hitler by Aloïs! As der Fuhrer allegedly confided to one of his NAZI henchmen, possibly Röhm, 'that was the miracle...millions of Germans would not have goose-stepped to war saluting to "Heil SCHICKLGRÜBER!":k_confused: They would have collapsed laughing.:har: Einstein once declared "God does not throw dice!" but he sure has a wicked sense of humor(what's in a Name?) and time is on His side...:oops:

[Stealhead]

In this scenario the uprising in Hungary in 1956 takes much longer for the Soviets to quell.As a result in East Germany and Poland there are several uprisings on a smaller scale. The hard line Soviets and hardline party leadership in the Warsaw Pact nations blame the unrest on outside influence from the west.

The Soviet leadership feels that this western influence is a sign that the United States and NATO are preparing for an invasion of East Germany.The Soviet leadership feels if the Warsaw Pact forces can capture most of West Germany in the first few days they will be able to break up NATO and gain control of West Germany,and Denmark as well as force France to leave NATO.

This scenario take place in summer of 1957 Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces in the first hours of the attack have taken control of Berlin and have pushed 25 miles into West Germany thus far NATO has been unable to hold the advance.

[Aktungbby]

BYE BYE KREMLINmeets:salute:"I like IKE!":dead::dead::dead::dead::dead::/\\!! luv, AktungBBY...former Youth for NIXON:timeout:SUNG TO: "there's a light golden glow on the tundra" and no more NUKE drills in the hall-back to the wall- with my head between my legs either! VON C: "In War everything is simple"....and sometimes...IT IS SIMPLE!. Ike knew the true nature of the Russian inferior missile count from U-2 flights which started in 1956 till 1960-with the Powers shoot down; and that there would be no clash on the ground in Europe that he could win militarily; presumably thru the Fulda Gap. As of July 1955, the gap had been reinforced with the V Corps consisting of 3rd Infantry Division; 3rd Armored Division; 8th Infantry Division and 4th Armor Group. Additionally due to the uncertainty of performance against the vast Communist Soviet 8th Guards Army, and follow-on reinforcements, atomic demolition mines were extensively employed in the Gap. Thank GOD there was no HOTTLINE till August 1963...so no 'oops we're sorry Bullschitski' to get in the way. The ghost of Patton was a' droolin'!:Kaleun_Salivating:holdem' by the nose n' NUKE their Commie Asses!

[Stealhead]

I forgot to mention that the Soviets infiltrate several saboteurs to the Hamms factory and destroy it before the operation.

:hmmm:.....ADHD much?

[Aktungbby]

I forgot to mention that the Soviets infiltrate several saboteurs to the Hamms factory and destroy it before the operation.ADHD much?

That's because they know who and where the real enemy is! I played a little hockey against those wimps...old Edina MN boy. 11 state titles since 69' the last in '13; My history prof/hockey coach and his brother, the governor, were both Olympic team players. The edge is in the sordid details: the really good little North MN & Russian teams play outdoors on 'hard ice' :up:whereas the rich Liberal Ed snots,( as with a previous post of yours), play on nice indoor arena, properly Zamboni'd, 'soft ice'!:down: All tournaments(when it counts)tend to be on soft arena rink ice and literally the edge and skating (timing) advantage goes to the kids (with an extra offensive line), used to the softer ice. :yeah:Had to have been a factor for the 'miracle' USA Olympic win too; Nine of the 20 member team were from Minnesota and had played at Univ. MN for head coach Brooks.:stare: Three of my guys played pro and a fourth was coach at Notre Dame. What ya gotta do to get higher on the podium ta piss off da the commies! To misquote the Iron Duke: "the wars are won on the playing fields of Et...indoor arenas of MN" :salute: Skol BBY

[Oberon]

In this scenario the uprising in Hungary in 1956 takes much longer for the Soviets to quell.As a result in East Germany and Poland there are several uprisings on a smaller scale. The hard line Soviets and hardline party leadership in the Warsaw Pact nations blame the unrest on outside influence from the west.

The Soviet leadership feels that this western influence is a sign that the United States and NATO are preparing for an invasion of East Germany.The Soviet leadership feels if the Warsaw Pact forces can capture most of West Germany in the first few days they will be able to break up NATO and gain control of West Germany,and Denmark as well as force France to leave NATO.

This scenario take place in summer of 1957 Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces in the first hours of the attack have taken control of Berlin and have pushed 25 miles into West Germany thus far NATO has been unable to hold the advance.

I can't see Khrushchev knowingly letting it get that far, but certainly the hardliners in the Politburo and military might well push him too far, and the hawkish attitude of the US under McCarthyism could force his hand.

So, it's war, and the T-55s are rolling through West Germany, the M48s and Centurions are getting a very nasty shock because their shells won't pierce the armour of the T-55s except at close range, although the following T-34s and T-44s are a bit easier to take on, except for the fact that there's about twenty of them for every NATO tank.

Ike would be faced with a hard choice, abandon West Germany or ring LeMay. Given that he would likely be impeached if he chose the former, it's likely that he'll choose the latter. So, LeMay gets on the phone to SAC and the BUFFs get airbourne, along with their little B-47 comrades. In the UK and the remaining operational airfields in West Germany, the B-57s and EE Canberras get airbourne, with Venoms and Sabres providing escort, the newly developed Avro Vulcans scramble from their bases and join the Strategic Air Command forces heading east (and west respectively).
The first wave of bombers target tactical locations, railyards, crossroads, airfields, mostly in Eastern Europe. Then the heavy bombers start hitting areas in Russia, primary targets are the R-2 ICBM sites, then military facilities and lastly major cities, in particular Moscow.
Moscow isn't as easy a target as some people who may perchance like their Hamms a little too much, may think. A ring of S-25 Surface to Air Missiles are waiting for any B-52s which come near it, when they reach the 30km engagement zone 56 Surface to Air Missile launchers are ready to fire, the toll is brutal although most nuclear bomber pilots were aware when they took off that they would not be coming home that day, however a couple of B-52s are able to survive long enough to drop their bombs, and the area around Moscow and the city itself are devastated by nuclear and thermonuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, as the bombers fly past, in Bitburg, the dispersed MGM-1 Matadors launch, some will be shot down by fighters as their technology is not that much greater than the V1 missiles that preceded them, but many will bumble through East Germany and hit cities that are unfortunate enough to have Warsaw Pact airfields near them. 40kt is enough to make many East Germans really wish that they hadn't have woken up this morning.

Not that it's all going to go NATOs way of course, not all of the R-2 ICBM sites will be hit in time to stop launches, and West Germany and countries west of it are going to find their defences against ICBMs don't exist for another sixty years. The US navy is going to get very confused when the approaching Tu-16s break away at 70 miles out and these smaller aircraft come flying in, right up until the KS-1 Komet explodes in a mushroom cloud in the middle of the carrier group. Other Tu-16s try their luck at taking on the contintental US alongside their Tu-4 counterparts, leading to a little bit of confusion in Alaskan, Scandinavian and Canadian areas as the Tu-4s are mistaken for the aircraft they were carbon copied from, the B-29, and of course, the newly introduced Tu-95s lumber across the polar wastes to deposit their buckets of sunshine on US soil.
Again though, although the US lacks the ring of SAMs that the Soviet Union has, the National Guard fighters and home defence squadrons mean that many bombers are detected and engaged at long distance, however as the British would demonstrate in Skyshield, good ECM could defeat the US defence network, and so it's inevitable that through accident or design some bombers would get through and US cities would be destroyed.

By the time the fallout has settled, most of East and West Germany are in ruins, with the two armies of NATO and the Warsaw Pact now more preoccupied with not dying of radiation sickness than shooting at each other. Expect a lot of pillaging by military forces as they slowly die off.
France has also taken a battering, and Scandinavia and the UK are glowing pretty well. Eastern Europe is mostly flattened and on fire. Russia and the US fare better than their allies since ICBM technology is in its infancy, but there's still enough damage to make both governments agree on a a ceasefire, primarily because their main armies are now glowing lumps of iron in a field which is on fire. Most nations below the equator are press ganged into assisting their allies above it, particularly in food manufacturing and refugee housing.

In the coming decades after the war, China and South America become dominant economic nations, the US and Russia will recover within two decades, but Europe will take far longer to rebuild, and will be reduced to third world status for the rest of the twentieth century.

[Aktungbby]

What ya gotta do to get higher on the podium ta piss off da the commies! To misquote the Iron Duke: "the wars are won on the playing fields of Et...indoor arenas of MN"

BYE BYE KREMLINmeets:salute:"I like IKE!" atomic demolition mines were extensively employed in the Gap. holdem' by the nose n' NUKE their Commie Asses!

So, LeMay gets on the phone to SAC and the BUFFs get airbourne, along with their little B-47 comrades.
Moscow isn't as easy a target as some people who may perchance like their Hamm's a little too much, may think.-52s are able to survive long enough to drop their bombs, and the area around Moscow and the city itself are devastated by nuclear and thermonuclear weapons.

:sign_yeah::agree:The code name GOMORRAH was already taken: Let's call this one SODOM(Commie Asses?)...A Hamm's quaff to Mars/ARES (god of Offensive War) then,:Kaleun_Cheers: as we mount the skies like atomic Valkyrie of the Apocalypse. Both our pitiful (move over 'Bomber' Harris?) statues would adorn what's left of Trafalgar Square after that!:nope::salute:

[Oberon]

Alrighty, here's one for the pot.

Next week Fox news runs a feature claiming that Obama is having an affair with an African-American male. They have pictures that show the man leaving the White House on multiple occasions with Obama waving goodbye in one of them. An aide in the White House also goes on record to confirm this.
Obama, forced to act by the report, addresses the nation within 48 hours to confirm that yes, he is gay and he and Michelle will be getting a divorce, having only stayed together for the children and for the public image.
How crazy does America go? Would the same thing happen if it was a Republican president who was outed as being homosexual? And how badly would the Subsim servers explode under the strain? :hmmm:

[TarJak]

Got your matches and petrol out Oberon?

[Oberon]

Got your matches and petrol out Oberon?

Never leave home without them! :salute:

http://www.wdr.de/tv/quarks/sendungsbeitraege/2009/0922/img/Text5_1.jpg

[Aktungbby]

SODOM today??? Gone TOMORRAH!! I figured that 'buggah' was on the "downlow" or, as my right-wing WASP mom used to put it: " They're Democrats you know!":O:

[TarJak]

Never leave home without them! :salute:

http://www.wdr.de/tv/quarks/sendungsbeitraege/2009/0922/img/Text5_1.jpg

That's not a petrol fire.

This is a petrol fire:
http://www.maritime-executive.com/media/filter/large/img/800px_carribean_petroleum_corporation_disaster.jpg

[Dread Knot]

How crazy does America go?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ja51IYJlbws/TESZ1F7bsXI/AAAAAAAAHqI/v1KS6oO92y0/s1600/screenshot15813.jpg

So, instead of being a Muslim president, he's now a gay Muslim president? There could be some cranial ejecta that needs cleaning up among the Right wing nuts.

[MH]

http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/main_photos/2012/May/obama_cover.jpg

[Oberon]

That's not a petrol fire.

This is a petrol fire:
http://www.maritime-executive.com/media/filter/large/img/800px_carribean_petroleum_corporation_disaster.jpg

That's if he announces that he's actually a Muslim. :yep:

[MH]

Meanwhile in russia...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9VGZjBQHr0s/TUxYEQA2xMI/AAAAAAAAF-c/tqXTQshU3CE/s640/laughriot1.bmp (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9VGZjBQHr0s/TUxYEQA2xMI/AAAAAAAAF-c/tqXTQshU3CE/s1600/laughriot1.bmp)

[Aktungbby]

Alright kids let's get back to Halsey's thread here: The second war of Independence: 1812 fails; Packenham is not killed at New Orleans, Washington DC is really really burned and Dolly Madison is captured with the picture of George W. under her arm at the White House and the British don't leave Tecumsah in the lurch at The Battle of the Thames, sealing off westward expansion past the Mississippi; and the USS Constiution is sunk on it's third combat encounter by the adroitly handled Cyane and Levant even as Francis Scott Key is accidently killed by an errant Congreve Rocket at Baltimore on his fist scribble..."O say can U envision.".. The 'Treaty of Paris-1783' is revoked by England. Well ok die-hards, the Constiution(Old Ironsides) is taken as a prize and becomes the finest British Frigate in the royal Navy... renamed suitably: HMS Magna Charta (old Royal Oaksides!)

[Stealhead]

You said that the USS Constitution was sunk but then also was taken as a prize by the Royal Navy and becomes the finest frigate.Perhaps you mean first submarine.:hmmm:


Vladimir Putin makes a time machine out of a pile of sticks.With this time machine he goes back in time and gathers up an army of Siberian tigers which he then places on his back he swims across to what is now Alaska and then walks with his tiger army all the way to the east coast with his tiger army he defeats the British.Then he starts a judo school.

[Jimbuna]

http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img105/4302/snoregb2.gif

[Admiral Halsey]

That was an interesting conversation you guys had while I was gone.

[Oberon]

That was an interesting conversation you guys had while I was gone.

Indeed, I'm not quite sure what happened...and I was in the conversation.

Shall we start again? :hmmm:

[Admiral Halsey]

Indeed, I'm not quite sure what happened...and I was in the conversation.

Shall we start again? :hmmm:

Sure. I've got a new Scenario anyways. The year is 1938 and the Munich crisis is at full tilt. In this scenario Chamberlain grows a pair and and together with France and Czechoslovakia declares war against Germany. What happens once the war starts and who ultimately wins? Also what effect does this end up having on the Pacific theater if any?

[MH]

Dont have time to think about it too much so here is some sketchy scenario.:arrgh!:

in 1938 Germany was not ready to fight France and Britain all together.
The french forces while badly organised had been considerable power in terms of potential manpower and military equipment.
In many cases leading the Germans , same for the British.
This was also mind shared in german military at this time so possibly this would mean that Hitler pushed it too far.
Most likely it would end with overthrowing Hitler by the army in particular if Brits and French could be able to mass some forces and attack with some success.
With Russian build up in the east and teritolial claims i wonder if Japan at some time would not find itself on the side of western powers eventually fighting Russia in all this mess.
USA might had join latter on depending on how Russian campaign goes.
:doh:

[TarJak]

This scenario makes little sense. More sensible if Churchill was PM in 38. Chamberlain was far from gutless and was doing his utmost to prevent another war.

[MH]

This scenario makes little sense. More sensible if Churchill was PM in 38. Chamberlain was far from gutless and was doing his utmost to prevent another war.


It was said that Chamberlain supposedly grew two big ones :haha:

[Dan D]

With regard to the Munich 1938 scenario, the German Admiral Wilhelm Canaris could have played an important role, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris

He was head of the „Abwehr“, the German military intelligence service and a German patriot.
After he realised that the Hitler regime would mean „Finis Germaniae“ (the end of Germany), he became the driving force behind an anti-Hitler group within the military and made a plot to capture and kill Hitler and to disarm the armed SS troops. He had fully armed Wehrmacht troops who were ready for action against Hitler and the SS when the result of the Munich conference came in, Hitler had again succeded with his gambling. The coup against Hitler was then aborted because Canaris felt that Hitler had gained such a popularity that a an attempted coup would lack the support within the Wehrmacht and the German population.

The German „Abwehr“ in 1938 even had secret talks with the British MI6 to convince the British side to declare war on Germany to prevent a „greater evil“ for Germany from a German viewpoint.

So if Britain would have declared war to Germany at that time, this would have propably lead to a succesful coup aginst Hitler by parts of the German military. It is said that Chamberlain accepted Hitler's conditions for the Munich agreement because he wanted to have more time to mobilize the British troops.

Quote from WIKI:

His [Canaris's] most audacious attempt was in planning, with Ewald von Kleist-Schmenzin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewald_von_Kleist-Schmenzin), to capture and eliminate Hitler and the entire Nazi party before the invasion of Czechoslovakia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia). At this particular moment, von Kleist visited Britain secretly and discussed the situation with British MI6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI6) and some high-ranking politicians. There, the name of Canaris became widely known as the executive hand of von Kleist in the event of an anti-Nazi plot. The high-ranking German military leaders believed that if Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, or any other country, then Britain would declare war on Germany. MI6 was of the same opinion. The British declaration of war would have given the General Staff, in their belief, both the pretext and support for an overthrow of Hitler.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris#cite_note-6)
The British reaction, however, to Hitler's demands on the Sudetenland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland) was more cautious. At a meeting with Hitler in Munich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement), British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain) and French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Édouard_Daladier) chose diplomacy over war. Munich was a severe disappointment for Kleist and Canaris. It gave Hitler's international reputation an important boost for two reasons: one, he was able to play the part of a man of reason and compromise; and two, he could boast that his predictions that Great Britain and France would not respond with war had proven to be correct. There are claims that Canaris, who was extremely shocked by this 'dishonest and stupid decision' (his own words), decided to be cautious and wait for a better time to act against Hitler.
In January 1939, Canaris manufactured the "Dutch War Scare", which gripped the British government. By 23 January 1939 the British government received information to the effect that Germany intended to invade the Netherlands in February 1939 with the aim of using Dutch air-fields to launch strategic bombing offensive intended to achieve a "knock-out" blow against Britain by razing British cities to the ground.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris#cite_note-7) All this information was false, and it was intended by Canaris to achieve a change in British foreign policy.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris#cite_note-8) In this, Canaris was successful, and the "Dutch War Scare" played a major role in causing Chamberlain to make the "continental commitment" (i.e. sending a large British ground force to the defence of France) in February 1939.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris#cite_note-9)
Nevertheless, it appears likely[vague (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vagueness)] that MI6 maintained contact with Canaris even after the Munich Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement) signed on 30 September 1938. When Winston Churchill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill) came to power after the resignation of Chamberlain in May 1940, Canaris' hopes were renewed, given the new Prime Minister's strong position against Hitler. “

[Dread Knot]

Sure. I've got a new Scenario anyways. The year is 1938 and the Munich crisis is at full tilt. In this scenario Chamberlain grows a pair and and together with France and Czechoslovakia declares war against Germany. What happens once the war starts and who ultimately wins?

It's likely that Germany loses, and Hitler gets overthrown by the Wehrmacht and is replaced by a conservative military junta. The Wehrmacht was against Case Green to the point of paranoia, with very good reasons. The army was still in the process of rearming and wasn't ready to fight Czechoslovakia, let alone anyone else who was likely to join in. The Sudetenland fortifications were quite good and the Czech army was one of the better ones in Europe at the time.

Also what effect does this end up having on the Pacific theater if any?There is likely no Pacific War. Japan's decision to go to war over the Southern Resource Area was strongly weighed by the 'distraction factor' of the war in Europe. The rich European colonies of Asia were seen as ripe for the plucking as they were basically leaderless and cut off from reinforcements with their home nations under German occupation. Japan isn't going to fight a war where the USA, Great Britain, France, and Holland can give her their full and un-divided attention.

[Admiral Halsey]

It was said that Chamberlain supposedly grew two big ones :haha:

A nice Churchill sized pair to be exact.

[Sailor Steve]

A nice Churchill sized pair to be exact.
It's "Alternate" history...you're supposed to be pretending. :O:

[Oberon]

It's alternate history, not alternate language.

Anyway, The War That Came Early, as some say.

The Wehrmacht was not really ready to take on France and Britain in '38, the Condor Legion are still bombing away in Spain, units would be out of position and understrength. However, whether or not the French and British could actually advance that far into Germany across the Maginot line is anyones best guess to be honest. They couldn't go through Holland, Belgium or Luxembourg, so that just leaves France.
I could see it bogging down into a war of attrition rather than a blitzkrieg, lots of skirmishing around the Black Forest, and some tank battles up in the Saarland. Once Czechoslovakia was dealt with, the German forces would transfer west and any gains the British and French had made would stop and in some places be reversed.
The Soviet Union would be intrigued and watch intently, putting pressure on the Baltic States and Poland to be assimilated into the Union whilst the British and French are preoccupied with attacking Hitler.
In the Pacific, well, depending on whether the Italians support the Germans in attacking France (doubtful) the Japanese would lose their inspiration for Pearl Harbor because the Royal Navy would have little need to attack Taranto, although a similar raid might occur in one of the North Sea ports.
Otherwise, I can't really see the Pacific war changing too much, I guess depending on how much of a meat-grinder the Black Forest skirmishes become we might bring in more ANZAC forces which would leave less for the Pacific, so maybe Port Moresby wouldn't hold out quite as well.
Otherwise the Pacific war was quite disconnected from the European one until the American entry, so I can't see there being that much influence.

[Admiral Halsey]

Might as well give you guys a new one. Before I do though everyone is welcome to post their own scenario if they want. Actually i'll let you guys think of the next scenario. Who wants to go first?

[TarJak]

The1950 invasion by North Korea succeeds With the USSR not boycotting the UN Security council and using their veto to prevent a resolution to intervene.

The US goes it alone and a protracted war ensues lasting until 1962 when Vietnamese communist insurgents start to take the US supported South apart.

With Korea still burning and Vietnam erupting what's Kennedy's decision? Flight two wars on the Asian continent or leave Vietnam to its fate?

[Admiral Halsey]

The1950 invasion by North Korea succeeds With the USSR not boycotting the UN Security council and using their veto to prevent a resolution to intervene.

The US goes it alone and a protracted war ensues lasting until 1962 when Vietnamese communist insurgents start to take the US supported South apart.

With Korea still burning and Vietnam erupting what's Kennedy's decision? Flight two wars on the Asian continent or leave Vietnam to its fate?

That's a tough one. Kennedy was wanting to get us out of Vietnam before he got killed so i'm leaning towards the latter option. However it depends on what the public opinion on the war is. If it's like it was at the end of Nam then it's a no-brainer that he pulls out. If it's still favorable to the war though that's when things get tricky.

[TarJak]

The 12 year Korean meat grinder probably sees all but the most hawkish on the side of staying out, but with the domino theory still prevalent, if he's able to end it quickly he may survive politically.

[Admiral Halsey]

The 12 year Korean meat grinder probably sees all but the most hawkish on the side of staying out, but with the domino theory still prevalent, if he's able to end it quickly he may survive politically.

In that case he leaves Vietnam to it's fate.

[Dread Knot]

With Korea still burning and Vietnam erupting what's Kennedy's decision? Flight two wars on the Asian continent or leave Vietnam to its fate?

I really can't see the political will in the US to keep fighting a stalemate for twelve years in Korea. Even in the Red-Scare environment of the 1950s domestic discontent would build. Sooner of later, like Vietnam the pressure builds to get it over with.

On the other side it's my understanding that even the Russians and Chinese were getting sick and tired of Kim Il-Sung by late 1952 and wanted the war over. Stalin's death also played a role since Malenkov (the next Soviet premier) was not too fond of Kim.

[Admiral Halsey]

Letting other people come up with the scenario is quite fun.

[Oberon]

Does it have to be military based? I did, in all seriousness, try one earlier but it didn't seem to work out. (The Gay President question).

[Admiral Halsey]

Does it have to be military based? I did, in all seriousness, try one earlier but it didn't seem to work out. (The Gay President question).

I kinda want this to be not that political if possible so if you don't have it be a military one just make sure it's not a political one or a politically charged one. That being said the occasional controversial question isn't a bad thing.

[TarJak]

In that case he leaves Vietnam to it's fate.

So another domino falls and the US situation in the Pacific becomes even more perilous as Thailand Malaysia and Indonesia communists become emboldened by the lack of response in Vietnam. What next?

[mapuc]

On a documentary on Discovery I was told that some theorist claim that there are several other worlds like ours

so maybe in some of these worlds or alternative worlds some of those "what if" have or could have happened

Bad that we can't travel to those worlds. If they do exist


Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

Alright who's next to make an AH scenario?

[mapuc]

What if Stanislav Petrov Yevgrafovich was'n so calm this September day in 1983 ?

Markus

[Jimbuna]

You probably wouldn't be posting on SubSim today.

[MH]

What if Stanislav Petrov Yevgrafovich was'n so calm this September day in 1983 ?

Markus

Blah..?????
Kaboom
The End.

[Admiral Halsey]

What if Stanislav Petrov Yevgrafovich was'n so calm this September day in 1983 ?

Markus


We would be living in Fallout.

[Platapus]

I sometimes wonder what might have happened if Vasili Arkhipov, in 1962 off the coast of Cuba, decided to "go with the majority" and agreed to launch a Type 53-58 nuclear warhead torpedo?:o

[Admiral Halsey]

I sometimes wonder what might have happened if Vasili Arkhipov, in 1962 off the coast of Cuba, decided to "go with the majority" and agreed to launch a Type 53-58 nuclear warhead torpedo?:o

Well for starters Cuba would be a bit more glow-in-the-darkish.

[Admiral Halsey]

Ok guys i've got a good one. What if Yamamoto wasn't killed by Operation Vengeance?

[Oberon]

Ok guys i've got a good one. What if Yamamoto wasn't killed by Operation Vengeance?

He'd probably have been forced to sortee with the Yamato on her last run, gone down with the Mushashi, or placed into some position where he had to undertake a suicide mission.
If he had survived the war though his memoirs and post-war interviews would have been fascinating, he would probably have been sentenced to life imprisonment, it's entirely possible that he might have had his sentence reduced to act as an aide to the creation of the JMSDF.

[Admiral Halsey]

If he had survived the war though his memoirs and post-war interviews would have been fascinating

Could you just imagine the info on Pearl and Midway we could've gotten alone?

[Dread Knot]

I've always wondered if Admiral Yamamoto wasn't somewhat over-rated. He oversaw the planning of Pearl Harbor, which although a success militarily was politically disastrous. It outraged Americans and united them. At Midway he spread Japanese naval assets all over the North Pacific almost out of a desire to give them something to do, when he should have committed them in brute force. In the Solomons, he seems to have settled for an attritional battle of trading ships and pilots with the US Navy. A battle that Japan could never afford to win.

Having such mixed success at the height of Japan's power, I don't see Japan's deteriorating situation much improved had he survived.

[Admiral Halsey]

Yamamoto never actually wanted to got to war against the US. He knew that if it lasted longer then a year or so the industrial might of the US would overwhelm Japan. That's the reason he did Pearl actually. So Japan could run wild long enough to bring the US to the peace table. Of course as you mentioned he screwed up big time by spreading everything around the Pacific during Midway when he should've focused them all on the capture of the island. Even then holding it would've been another barrel of fish altogether.

[Dread Knot]

Yamamoto never actually wanted to got to war against the US. He knew that if it lasted longer then a year or so the industrial might of the US would overwhelm Japan. That's the reason he did Pearl actually. So Japan could run wild long enough to bring the US to the peace table. Of course as you mentioned he screwed up big time by spreading everything around the Pacific during Midway when he should've focused them all on the capture of the island. Even then holding it would've been another barrel of fish altogether.


That's what seems so odd. Though a patriotic Japanese, he seems to have genuinely enjoyed his time in America, maintaining a subscription to Life magazine, enjoying American football, and expressing his admiration for Abraham Lincoln.

However, with the PH attack, Yamamoto seems to have badly misread the American temperament despite his naval posting here. The attack on Pearl Harbor made it all but certain that there would be no negotiated settlement. Yamamoto must have known by the time of his death that Japan was doomed. But, in keeping with the Japanese national and military mystique, he fought on to the end of his life.

[Jimbuna]

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant."

[Dread Knot]

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant."


Another Yamamoto quote that was eerily prophetic was, "the fiercest serpent may be overcome by a swarm of ants." His statement in opposition of the planned construction of the Yamato class super battleships.

And after his death, both ships went down under a swarm of planes.

[Jimbuna]

Another Yamamoto quote that was eerily prophetic was, "the fiercest serpent may be overcome by a swarm of ants." His statement in opposition of the planned construction of the Yamato class super battleships.

And after his death, both ships went down under a swarm of planes.

Spot on :yep:

[Oberon]

That's what seems so odd. Though a patriotic Japanese, he seems to have genuinely enjoyed his time in America, maintaining a subscription to Life magazine, enjoying American football, and expressing his admiration for Abraham Lincoln.

However, with the PH attack, Yamamoto seems to have badly misread the American temperament despite his naval posting here. The attack on Pearl Harbor made it all but certain that there would be no negotiated settlement. Yamamoto must have known by the time of his death that Japan was doomed. But, in keeping with the Japanese national and military mystique, he fought on to the end of his life.

Yamamoto didn't misread the American temperament, he was following orders, and those orders made war with America inevitable. Yamamotos job was to keep it as far away from Japan for as long as possible. He hoped that by hitting Pearl after declaring war, and then engaging what remained in a decisive battle with the carrier fleet he would force the US to negotiate. It was a gamble, and Yamamoto knew that, if the US had not had Magic and Radar then Yamamotos plan might well have come off, but he wasn't to know about either (well, certainly Magic, I'm not so sure about the radar) and the delay in the declaration of war communique just sealed the fate of the war.
He wasn't some god like figure, but out of all of the Japanese High Command, he was probably the most human of them all, which is why western (and Japanese) media often portray him in a kinder light than the likes of Tojo and the rest of them. He was also one of the most grounded, and realistic of them, but doomed by the inflexible and 'barter-like' Japanese military command system, in which all forces struggled against each other rather than in co-operation.
He would have made a damn fine Allied admiral, with the resources and command system of either the US or UK navies behind him.


And Jim, Mr Hamms is right, there's no evidence that Yamamoto said that, although to be fair, there's no evidence that he did not. What he did say though was:

"A military man can scarcely pride himself on having 'smitten a sleeping enemy'; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten. I would rather you made your appraisal after seeing what the enemy does, since it is certain that, angered and outraged, he will soon launch a determined counterattack."

[Catfish]

Also you should not forget that the USA (or at least its president of the time) was eager to get into war with Japan, he just had to find an excuse (read "The cruise of the Lanikai"), but "fortunately" Japan did what it did.
Yamamoto knew that it was a very risky thing to do, but so were his orders as Oberon already said.

Same with the war against Germany, Roosevelt (F.D. thanks Aktungboy ! :yep:) was at England's side from day one, from 'lend and lease' to spreading the US's territorial waters to the mid-atlantic; the 'MOMP' (Mid ocean meeting point) to hand the convoys over to british ships, to lure Germany into war. The japanese "declaration of war" via Pearl harbour, and the following german declaration of war finally freed him from his congressional tethers.

[Catfish]

Oops thanks, yes - corrected it. :)

[Admiral Halsey]

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant."

There's actually no proof he ever said that.

[mapuc]

There's actually no proof he ever said that.

Nevertheless I have also in many Danish and Swedish history books read the same that he should have said these words.

So now I'm confused.

Markus

[Jimbuna]

There's actually no proof he ever said that.

Well he most certainly did in the 1970 film Tora! Tora! Tora!, and in the 2001 film Pearl Harbor :)

[Admiral Halsey]

Got an interesting one as I doubt anyone's ever heard of this. What if John Jellicoe died during the sinking of HMS Victoria?(I'll post the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victoria_(1887)#The_collision) to the incident i'm talking about.)

[Aktungbby]

Simple: Beatty... Scheer still gets his aß kicked back to the Jade at the Skagerrak (Jutland). When he actually took over from Jellico, he became 'more like Jellico than Jellico' in his handling and protection of the Royal Navy.(Castles of Steel & Dreadnought). The British fleet, which had been withdrawn to Scapa at the war's outset, completely threw off the Kaiser's expected war plan (Timing and location in the North Sea) for a confrontation with the Royal Navy. This was a primary factor in emphasizing the diplomatically disasterous U-boat campaign. The public demand for a Trafalgar-like confrontation never materialized, adding to poor Jellico's unpopularity at home. In reality, a Tsushima or Trafalgar like encounter was unlikely in modern naval engagements and in any case, simply putting Scheer's High Seas Fleet into permanent hibernation after 1916 at Jutland, really settled the issue; however unsatisfying to the British public after such vast all big-ship expenditures under ADM 'Jackie' Fisher and chief proponent 'Winnie' Churchill(as First Sea Lord). The German fleet only ever came out again ...to be scuttled at Scapa Flow. Ironically Beatty and Jellico are buried side by side in St Paul's Cathedral in London...they did not get on well in life. Whatever slights suffered in life, they are all equal now...:dead: That the war continued slaughterwise after 1916, until 11/11/1918, after the principle issue of German expansion had been settled at sea, is the mind boggling mega-disaster of the senseless 20th century...it was for nothing...and led to worse!

[Admiral Halsey]

Simple: Beatty... Scheer still gets his aß kicked back to the Jade at the Skagerrak (Jutland).

I wouldn't say Scheer got his but kicked when he lost less ships and crew then the British did.

[Aktungbby]

Absolutely correct as to count::salute: but the one runnin' fer home at day's end after getting his 'T' crossed 'from horizon to horizon' by the entire Royal Home Fleet to a 'permanent internment' was Scheer, not Jellico. The beautiful, cadenced fire of Hipper's squadron at Beatty's battle cruisers who said 'there's something wrong with our ships today' as they horrendously blew up, actually lured Hipper and Scheer into Jellico's trap as he fled northward. It fell to Jellico however, in the absence of a precise location report from his scout force, Beatty's squadron(his main job!), to make one of the great decisions of the war: to turn the entire Fleet out of Scapa in column into line-of-battle-ahead ...left or right!!! He turned intuitively and fully committed to left-East and Crossed Scheer's T in the classic maneuver. Alles kaput! The expression "lit em up" was never more appropriate...Scheer knew it and, under cover of darkness, regained his anchorage, the Jade Bight, throughout a very long night. He did not care to retest the issue.

[Admiral Halsey]

So who wants the next turn?

[soopaman2]

What do you think the outcome of world history would be if Lord Nelson would have lost the battle of Trafalgar?

Something I pondered, I wonder if this was even important, could the french and Spanish invade Britain, even after destroying the fleet?

Alternate history, Britains Naval supremacy gets shattered, would they hold empire as they have afterwards?

Would Spain be one of the "Big 3" (USA britain, France) allies instead of Britain?


Thoughts, opinions?

[Admiral Halsey]

What do you think the outcome of world history would be if Lord Nelson would have lost the battle of Trafalgar?
Well for starters he there would be no more HMS Victory. As for the actual effects I doubt it really changes much when all is said and done.

[Aktungbby]

:hmmm:The question assumes that Nelson will be killed again. Fair enough, as he'd already lost an eye and arm by 1805 (Trafalger) so probably would have seen his end again. However the battle of the Atlantic side of the 'gut', Gibraltar Straight, was the finishing stroke of the longest naval war in history and a naval conflict that had stretched to the coast of Virginia to oversee the defeat of Cornwallis at the Chesapeake Cape( De Grasse vs Hood and Rodney); to the Coast of India where one of history's great admirals, De Suffren (Admiral Satan)was matched by his British counterpart Admiral Eduard Hughes for several encounters along the Indian Coast. So too, with Nelson who had already saved the British empire by his massive victory at Aboukir Bay, six years before, near Alexandria Egypt. This cut off Napoleon's Egyptian army and relieved the threat to India through the Red sea., His report:
'Almighty God has blessed his Majesty's Arms in the late Battle, by a great Victory over the Fleet of the Enemy, who I attacked at sunset on the 1st of August, off the Mouth of the Nile. The Enemy were moored in a strong Line of Battle for defending the entrance of the Bay (of Shoals), flanked by numerous Gun-boats, four Frigates, and a Battery of Guns and Mortars on an Island in their Van; but nothing could withstand the Squadron your Lordship did me the honour to place under my command. Their high state of discipline is well known to you, and with the judgment of the Captains, together with their valour, and that of the Officers and Men of every description, it was absolutely irresistible. Could anything from my pen add to the character of the Captains, I would write it with pleasure, but that is impossible.' - Rear-Admiral Horatio Nelson's despatch to Admiral John Jervis, Earl of St. Vincent, 3 August 1798.... Even with a theoretical defeat of Nelson in 1805, after the Aboukir annihilation, Napoleon's hope of interruption to the British empire had been thwarted in 1798. His Egyptian army never returned to France. ADM Jarvis, capable of the trick himself, had other talent: Collingwood and Nelson's other well trained A team 'band of brothers' as England always has; and Napoleon, like the German Hitler, a 'coward at sea' would never have pulled off an invasion of the sceptered isle against the vast 'high state of discipline' naval resources that remained. An aside to HALSEY: British first rate ships-of-the-line like the 100 gun Victory, unless blown up like the 120 gun flagship, L'Orient, at Aboukir when her powder exploded, almost never sank due to their exceptional 'wooden world' construction. She would probably have been dismasted (as in the real fight) and rebuilt as the Victoire. That occurred quite often throughout the 200+ year conflict. The ship's average service life was over 50 years.:salute:

[Raptor1]

I think Trafalgar is one event that would have very little short-term effects had it gone the other way, but it might well have had long-term effects on the rest of the Napoleonic Wars and possibly on Britain's naval supremacy during the 19th century, depending on how bad the defeat was and how the rest of the war progressed as a result.

The French invasion of Britain had already been abandoned when Austria joined the Third Coalition and the Ulm Campaign was well underway when the Battle of Trafalgar was fought, so it's unlikely that the outcome of that war would have gone differently. Another attempt at invasion would have been possible later on, but I don't know how practical that would have been even with the Franco-Spanish Fleet intact, since the Royal Navy had other fleets capable of opposing the crossing. It would have certainly made it much more difficult for Britain to fight the Peninsular War later on, though.

[TarJak]

I suspect the main impact on British ambition in the conflict would have been an extension of the Spanish and French alliance which effectively broke down after Trafalgar. Although the relationship was already on rocky ground beforehand.

That would have slowed the peninsula campaign but I think the long term result would have been the same.

Here is another...

General Wolfe fails to take Louisbourg and Quebec in 1756. French activity in the Americas increases with th effect of the British effectively abandoning several settlements including most of Nova Scotia.
By 1774 they're getting closer to taking Boston which has been under siege for 3 months.

With British America under threat of annihilation, thoughts of independence and representation are far from people's minds

What is the reaction by colonists. Fight for King and country or side with the frogs?

[Admiral Halsey]

I suspect the main impact on British ambition in the conflict would have been an extension of the Spanish and French alliance which effectively broke down after Trafalgar. Although the relationship was already on rocky ground beforehand.

That would have slowed the peninsula campaign but I think the long term result would have been the same.

Here is another...

General Wolfe fails to take Louisbourg and Quebec in 1756. French activity in the Americas increases with th effect of the British effectively abandoning several settlements including most of Nova Scotia.
By 1774 they're getting closer to taking Boston which has been under siege for 3 months.

With British America under threat of annihilation, thoughts of independence and representation are far from people's minds

What is the reaction by colonists. Fight for King and country or side with the frogs?

Hmmmm seeing as during the revolution we needed French help to win i'd go with us siding along side the French only if the would guarantee Independence one the war is over. Of course this is all a moot point as in this scenario Washington is still in the British Army.

[TarJak]

Well even if the tea act was passed no one in Boston is really that uptight about it. They're more concerned with staying alive.

My thoughts are they stand with Britain. What's the likely impact on history if the revolution is cancelled in favour of forcing Louis' troops north of the 48th parallel?

[Admiral Halsey]

Finally thought of a new one. What if Britain and France attack Germany within a couple of days of declaring war on Sept 3rd and invade it?

[Dread Knot]

Finally thought of a new one. What if Britain and France attack Germany within a couple of days of declaring war on Sept 3rd and invade it?

Actually, the French did attack. They launched an offensive in the Saar which consisted of some 22 divisions in all, most of which were almost completely untrained and the bulk of which barely moved beyond they start point. The greatest depth the French advanced was 8km into Germany, where they were halted after a small number of skirmishes with the German defenders. When Poland collapsed they were all too happy to retreat.

To have launched a major offensive would have required a monumental change in doctrine upon the part of the French which would have had to begun years prior to the war. After all, the purpose of the Maginot Line was so that the French would not have to go on the offensive at all. The shadows of Verdun and Somme weighed heavily upon them. Most of their generals anticipated millions of casualties which France could not afford for the second time in 20 years.

Another problem was that the French army in 1939 was in a sense a vast cadre formation designed to be filled up with recruits and then trained. The standing army was only 300, 000 strong, the rest of the army was made up of reserves, many of whom hadn’t seen a rifle in years. What was urgently required before all offensive took place was the training of those troops. If they attack Germany they are sending in effect untrained formations at the Germans. I don't see this ending well. With Belgium neutral you only have a narrow front to fight across with the terrain heavily favoring the defenders.

Another dissuader was the German Siegfried line was started in 1936 and by 1939, despite being anywhere near complete, was sufficiently strong to represent a formidable obstacle. Nowhere near as formidable as the Maginot, but good enough to dissuade France from spoiling for a major offensive.

[Admiral Halsey]

I remember reading from somewhere that Jodl thought that if France invaded during the invasion of Poland they wouldn't have been able to stop them.

[mapuc]

I will see if I can get this correct

I mostly think of Sweden and their military strength up to the start of the WWII

They were as most of the European countries, very low. I guess that most countries wasn't strong enough to take on Germany right on.

When the war started or a while after(in the beginning every one thought this was a phoney war(or what it was called) the industry was barely on high speed, but when it came clear that the Germans meant business the industries in the countries that was at war went into highest gear.

Even when it came to military manpower many countries was way behind.

Of course I could be wrong.

Markus

[Jimbuna]

I will see if I can get this correct

I mostly think of Sweden and their military strength up to the start of the WWII

They were as most of the European countries, very low. I guess that most countries wasn't strong enough to take on Germany right on.

When the war started or a while after(in the beginning every one thought this was a phoney war(or what it was called) the industry was barely on high speed, but when it came clear that the Germans meant business the industries in the countries that was at war went into highest gear.

Even when it came to military manpower many countries was way behind.

Of course I could be wrong.

Markus

No your not and the best possible example would be to cite how the US geared themselves up even if a little later.

[Dread Knot]

I remember reading from somewhere that Jodl thought that if France invaded during the invasion of Poland they wouldn't have been able to stop them.

Fog of war. General Jodl may have been unaware of the pallorous state of French mobilization. It suffered from an inherently out of date system. The French military′s ordnance lacked the motorization of the German military which greatly affected their ability to swiftly deploy their forces on the field. The French command still placed their trust in the tactics of World War I, which relied heavily on stationary artillery, even though this took time to transport and deploy (many pieces also had to be retrieved from storage before any advance could be made.)

[mapuc]

This is Alternate History so we could presume that England and France had enough military strength to invade Germany right after the war declaration

This is right from my memory, from all those books I have read about WWII

The German Wehrmacht wasn't battle ready before 1942. I read somewhere that the wehrmacht had said to Hitler, they wasn't ready for war before -42 or was it 43.

It's a tough one.

A military force always fights hardere when they are defending their own country and the German is/was some very good soldier and their generals and officers was of very high quality

Markus

[Cybermat47]

Here's one: Greece defeats the Roman Empire.

[Dread Knot]

Here's one: Greece defeats the Roman Empire.

In a way they kinda did, or outlasted them anyway. The Byzantine Empire which arose from the split of the later Roman Empire was essentially a Greek empire, The Greek language and culture being central to the imperial identity despite calling themselves the Romoi or Romans.

[Admiral Lutjens]

I'm in the process of writing two books, both of which I intend to turn into at least a miniseries.

This first is entitled 'Darkest Days' and it centers around the Germans cutting off the Allies at Dunkirk and preventing their escape (in essence, Hitler doesn't give his famous stop order to von Rundstedt at the St. Omer Canal.) There's chaos in London...and we go from there. ;)

My second book is entitled 'Days of Infamy' and it centers around the Japanese sinking our carriers during the Pearl Harbor operation.

Alternate history is my obsession, so if anybody would like a good discussion, let me know! :)

[Cybermat47]

In a way they kinda did, or outlasted them anyway. The Byzantine Empire which arose from the split of the later Roman Empire was essentially a Greek empire, The Greek language and culture being central to the imperial identity despite calling themselves the Romoi or Romans.

I remember seeing a cartoon about that.

"We live in a Greek town... we speak the Greek language... our culture is Greek... therefore we must be Romans!"

[Admiral Halsey]

I'm in the process of writing two books, both of which I intend to turn into at least a miniseries.

This first is entitled 'Darkest Days' and it centers around the Germans cutting off the Allies at Dunkirk and preventing their escape (in essence, Hitler doesn't give his famous stop order to von Rundstedt at the St. Omer Canal.) There's chaos in London...and we go from there. ;)

My second book is entitled 'Days of Infamy' and it centers around the Japanese sinking our carriers during the Pearl Harbor operation.

Alternate history is my obsession, so if anybody would like a good discussion, let me know! :)

Harry Turtledove already beat you to the punch with an alternate history series called "Days of Infamy". Though both idea's intrigue me big time.(Oh and today's scenario was funny enough going to be what would've happened had Hitler told Von Rundstedt to keep going instead of stopping during Dunkirk.)

[Admiral Lutjens]

Harry Turtledove already beat you to the punch with an alternate history series called "Days of Infamy". Though both idea's intrigue me big time.(Oh and today's scenario was funny enough going to be what would've happened had Hitler told Von Rundstedt to keep going instead of stopping during Dunkirk.)

Thank you for pointing that out as I have totally forgotten about that! It's a good thing I haven't put anything in writing yet, just ideas floating around. I'll have to certainly change the name.

That's awesome! Let's discuss this scenario.

[Admiral Halsey]

My two cents are that Churchill would be under enormous pressure to surrender but wouldn't. The Nazi's still wouldn't invade Britain and the African campaign might get a bit hairier but would still end in victory. So basically I think it wouldn't end up changing a thing.

[mapuc]

Went out on the sidewalk and closed the door behind me. Was just about to go into a person who walked past me . I looked at my watch. 17:33 or 5:33 pm and still a little light . It must be early spring. are still in the same place and looking left and right. Looking at the clothes they wear. Looking out on the road, looking at the cars driving by . Hmm, guess early 60s the United States or England. I see a traffic light starts to go to wards that . Maybe there are some road signs or street names that might tell me what city I am. I could also ask one of the pedestrian where I am or what city I am in

Excuse me sir, could you possi ...

Was is das!

? What ? is this not England ? Trying again
this time in German, as best I can .

Könnte der Herr mir sagen was diese Englishe Stadt heißt ?

English Stadt, Verlassen Sie oder ich Rufe die Polizei

I immediately starts to walk towards the traffic lights. Watching a newspaper stand . Go over there and look at the newspaper. Hmm mysterious. I should be in an English town , but everything is in German.

The date, what does it say May 23, 1983

Coming up to the traffic lights and look up at the first street sign I see

My heart makes a jump .

The last word in the street name is Straße. This can't be right

I continue my walk, this time I toke a left turn in the intersection

After about 10 minutes walk I see an another traffic sign hanging over the road

I get closer to this traffic sign
Now my heart starts to galloping. on this sign, you can read following

London 10 km......


Markus

[Admiral Lutjens]

My two cents are that Churchill would be under enormous pressure to surrender but wouldn't. The Nazi's still wouldn't invade Britain and the African campaign might get a bit hairier but would still end in victory. So basically I think it wouldn't end up changing a thing.

I don't know...considering that had this occured, the British would have lost most of their field army particularly heavy equipment. In my book, Goering dies in the early days of the attack and Hitler proclaims Kesselring as the new Reichsmarschall.

I think that Churchill, having just taken control of the government, would have been under extreme pressure - so much so that the government as a whole could collapse. With this disaster, and Britain on the ropes, she'd be a lot more hard pressed to, regardless of the Royal Navy's strength, defend her positions outside of India. The Italians while inferior in tactics, equipment, and leadership were vastly superior in numbers to their British counterparts. Thus, Malta, Egypt, and later Cyprus would be in an extremely difficult situation.

The whole of North Africa would be under Axis control, and Gibraltar and the Levant would be in serious jeopardy as well.

[Cybermat47]

Went out on the sidewalk and closed the door behind me. Was just about to go into a person who walked past me . I looked at my watch. 17:33 or 5:33 pm and still a little light . It must be early spring. are still in the same place and looking left and right. Looking at the clothes they wear. Looking out on the road, looking at the cars driving by . Hmm, guess early 60s the United States or England. I see a traffic light starts to go to wards that . Maybe there are some road signs or street names that might tell me what city I am. I could also ask one of the pedestrian where I am or what city I am in

Excuse me sir, could you possi ...

Was is das!

? What ? is this not England ? Trying again
this time in German, as best I can .

Könnte der Herr mir sagen was diese Englishe Stadt heißt ?

English Stadt, Verlassen Sie oder ich Rufe die Polizei

I immediately starts to walk towards the traffic lights. Watching a newspaper stand . Go over there and look at the newspaper. Hmm mysterious. I should be in an English town , but everything is in German.

The date, what does it say May 23, 1983

Coming up to the traffic lights and look up at the first street sign I see

My heart makes a jump .

The last word in the street name is Straße. This can't be right

I continue my walk, this time I toke a left turn in the intersection

After about 10 minutes walk I see an another traffic sign hanging over the road

I get closer to this traffic sign
Now my heart starts to galloping. on this sign, you can read following

London 10 km......


Markus

DAS IST DER OKTOBERFEST! :Kaleun_Cheers::Kaleun_Cheers:

[Oberon]

OKTOBERFEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEST!


But yes, there's a reason that Sealions are usually referred to as 'The unmentionable sea mammal' in alternate history circles, or at least on alternatehistory.net. Even the loss of the BEF wouldn't have made the invasion any more successful or likely. It would certainly have caused a lot of consternation in Westminster, and a lot of anger at home, both at the Germans and the government, but the success of the Battle of Britain would soon put things back on track.
Africa would be interesting though, Rommel might get closer to the Suez than he did in reality, but he would still run into supply problems, and the German High Command would still be more distracted with Barbarossa to give him anything of real use. So it would end relatively historically, as would the war in general.

[Admiral Halsey]

Might be early but I was reading Theodore Roosevelt's book on the naval war in 1812 which got me thinking for a new scenario. What if he had won back the presidency in the 1912 election and how would that effect American involvement in WW1?

[Admiral Lutjens]

Might be early but I was reading Theodore Roosevelt's book on the naval war in 1812 which got me thinking for a new scenario. What if he had won back the presidency in the 1912 election and how would that effect American involvement in WW1?

I think that he would have been more hawkish, and concurrently may have entered the war sooner. Additionally, we probably now wouldn't be subject to Wilson's policies such as federal reserve and income tax that affect us to this very day.

[Admiral Halsey]

Additionally, we probably now wouldn't be subject to Wilson's policies such as federal reserve and income tax that affect us to this very day.

Always a chance another president would cook something worse up though,

[Admiral Lutjens]

Always a chance another president would cook something worse up though,

Indeed. However, like I mentioned, Teddy regaining the White House might have been a lot more saber-rattling and a lot less isolationism.

[Admiral Halsey]

Indeed. However, like I mentioned, Teddy regaining the White House might have been a lot more saber-rattling and a lot less isolationism.

So true. Oh and a new scenario that should really get the AH blood flowing. What if Booth never assassinated Lincoln? Let the fun BEGIN!

[Cybermat47]

So true. Oh and a new scenario that should really get the AH blood flowing. What if Booth never assassinated Lincoln? Let the fun BEGIN!

I have one better...

What if Chochrane had killed the Vulcans?!

[mapuc]

I have one better...

What if Chochrane had killed the Vulcans?!

In the Star Trek world it have happened in a alternative world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_a_Mirror,_Darkly

Markus

[Oberon]

I have one better...

What if Chochrane had killed the Vulcans?!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXw6hC7hxBA

[Admiral Halsey]

Ok very funny guys. Can we please get back to the scenario at hand though?

[Cybermat47]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXw6hC7hxBA

Gah, it angers me to see an Alfa from The Hunt for Red October interact with the U-boat from U-571. I hate U-571 :stare:

[Oberon]

Gah, it angers me to see an Alfa from The Hunt for Red October interact with the U-boat from U-571. I hate U-571 :stare:

Well, at least the Alfa is blowing it up, you can just imagine the cast of U-571 is on the Uboat at the time. :yep:

[mapuc]

Ok very funny guys. Can we please get back to the scenario at hand though?


Sorry teacher, couldn't help it.

To speculate in how USA would be "if" Lincoln, continued as the President, we have to know him in a psychological way and how he interact with other politicians and their goal.

In other words we have to look back at his political history and his life, before we can make a speculation on how USA would be "if"...


'cause if he wasn't shot a totally new timeline would occur.
Markus

[Jimbuna]

Sorry teacher, couldn't help it.

To speculate in how USA would be "if" Lincoln, continued as the President, we have to know him in a psychological way and how he interact with other politicians and their goal.

In other words we have to look back at his political history and his life, before we can make a speculation on how USA would be "if"...


'cause if he wasn't shot a totally new timeline would occur.
Markus

If he'd taken up the offer to become a vampire just before going to the theatre he would still be with us :hmmm:

[mapuc]

If he'd taken up the offer to become a vampire just before going to the theatre he would still be with us :hmmm:


You know, when writing, I had this movie, Lincoln the vampire slayer, in my head.

Markus

[Oberon]

In Victoria II there is a newspaper article that states that Lincoln dodged the bullet and then threw Wilkes-Booth off the balcony. That conjures up a hilarious mental image whenever I read it.

Apparently they also did a loading screen image that was never completed of it too:

http://i.imgur.com/czrMm5X.jpg

EDIT: Also, here's a good summary of 'If Lincoln had lived' works - http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=184802

[mapuc]

Here's another one

What if the atomic bomb or nuclear power never was invented

How would the world be today?

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

Here's another one

What if the atomic bomb or nuclear power never was invented

How would the world be today?

Markus

Well for starters the Invasion of Japan would have been the bloodiest battle of all time.

[mapuc]

Well for starters the Invasion of Japan would have been the bloodiest battle of all time.

That's 100 % sure it would be.

In some of the books about WWII I read that the US military expected the attack on Japan to go on for about...can't remember the years and how many soldier they was expecting to send.

It's not only Japan but even Europe. How would Europe be, let say 30 years from end of WWII? In my mind there's no doubt, no atomic bomb, I would probably speak Russian today.

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

That's 100 % sure it would be.

In some of the books about WWII I read that the US military expected the attack on Japan to go on for about...can't remember the years and how many soldier they was expecting to send.

It's not only Japan but even Europe. How would Europe be, let say 30 years from end of WWII? In my mind there's no doubt, no atomic bomb, I would probably speak Russian today.

Markus

Or you'd be speaking the same language you are today. The US wouldn't stand by idle and let Russia overrun Europe. They would've done whatever it took to stop them.

[mapuc]

Or you'd be speaking the same language you are today. The US wouldn't stand by idle and let Russia overrun Europe. They would've done whatever it took to stop them.

Never thought of it. Made me remember an another Alternate History I have in mind.

Markus

[Oberon]

Or you'd be speaking the same language you are today. The US wouldn't stand by idle and let Russia overrun Europe. They would've done whatever it took to stop them.

Would it have been enough though?

Think about it.

No atomic bomb means no early Japanese surrender, that's an invasion of Japan going ahead, an invasion which OTL called for seven nuclear bombs anyway, so you're probably looking at over a million US casualties before wars end, and all likelihood with no nuclear bomb that the US would have cracked open the chemical and biological weapons to deal with the Japanese, mustard gas and all that fun stuff.

Finally the war with Japan ends, the American people are jubilant but pretty exhausted with war, the Soviets have probably grabbed all of Korea, and probably Hokkaido too. So Stalin turns west.

What does the US have to stop him? There's 13 million men, dozens of thousands of tanks, and thousands of aircraft, if not dozens of thousands coming across the border in Germany, the air warfare might go in the favour of the US, but without nuclear weapons, the ground warfare would not work out well. The Pershings would be about the only thing that could hold their own against the IS3 monster, the rest of the Allied forces would provide equipment to assist, although most of it would have to be rushed back from the Pacific to get to Europe, by which time the Soviets would be knocking on the French border, if not Paris itself.
However, the Soviets achielles heel would come in to play here in a dramatic fashion. They would start running out of fuel, like Rommel before them, their supply trains would struggle to keep up with their advance, and with the US pounding them from the skies, the Soviets would find themselves overextended somewhat.
By this point the US government, under pressure from Congress, and the financial markets, who have just witnessed the collapse of the UKs economy, would likely quietly ask the Soviets for a ceasefire in return for them getting the whole of Germany. The Soviets would probably agree, and thus the Cold War would start but with different borders.

After that, or if the Soviets decide not to attack in 1945, then it would be a case of spamming armed forces into Europe by both sides until either the continent sank under the combined weight of thousands of T-55s and M48s, or either the Soviet or US economy collapsed due to excess military spending (the Soviet one would go first, the US one a bit later...so a bit like current real life really...) and then the Soviet Union collapses in on itself and the world goes into recession. So, sort of a 1980s-2010s but between 1960 and 1980. :haha:

Oh, and there would be far less Purple Hearts readily available for US Armed Forces to use in modern combat zones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties)

[mapuc]

Here'a another one.

Speculate the outcome, if the President of USA and the other generals followed Pattons idea and attacked USSR right after the end of WWII.

Markus

[TarJak]

Much death and destruction across Europe and into Asia.

Stalemate somewhere in East Germany or Poland. Nukes used on Moscow and Stalingrad.

[Raptor1]

I can't see nuclear weapons being used on Moscow and Stalingrad this early after World War II (not to mention the latter was basically a ruin anyway). Any attempt at strategic bombardment within the Soviet Union would have been vastly more difficult than it was with Germany and Japan because of the geography and the forces available to the Soviets to counter it, so I doubt such a mission would have been sent in the first place; the risk of it being shot down and captured would be too great. Besides, the effect a nuclear bomb would have had on the Soviet Union would likely have been either negligible or even counter-productive unless it was already losing the war to begin with.

As for the ground war, I'm guessing it would end up in some form of negotiated peace with the Soviets in control of all of Germany and Korea as well as possibly the rest of the Balkans and part (or all of) Italy. I don't think the Western Allies were capable of defeating the Red Army in a land war at this point, even if they were politically unified enough to undertake this sort of operation. They might be able to dig in and hold against the inevitable counterattack at some point, but I doubt any offensive into Eastern Europe would last more than a few days.

[Aktungbby]

Actually The frontal assault never works and that soon after WWII, Eisenhower, having already conceded Berlin to the Soviet sector as unimportant, would have eschewed anything remotely like frontal assault through Fulda Gap and eastward. Island England would have been covered but all else on the European mainland would be 'unimportant", and the Swiss can fend for themselves. The real attack would have been with our forces massed where they were from the 'carrier of Japan'- with nukes to the Kamchatkan Peninsula and Manchurian boarder having once neutralized the main rail road to the east from main Russian forces along the "iron curtain" from Karelia in the north to the tip of the Balkans in the south. Sakhalin, the Kurils, and four small islands, still disputed to this day by Japan and Russia(Treaty of San Francisco-1951) would necessarily have fallen to the American spear in the opening phase of this operation. MacArthur, not Patton, and ably aided by a resurrected Field Marshal von Manstein,(with a game plan still in effect) would be the pick for this operation. Stalin, his eyes on his illicit gains from the European theatre, would be hard pressed in his own two-front war; And back down as his grip in the ever-rebellious satellite west is weakened to deal with the onslaught in the east. He had deliberately weakened those eastern areas to deal with Nazi threat and never reinforced to the extent necessary to repel a full scale attack on that front. His Pacific land grab under his "Manchurian Strategic Offensive" in the waning days of the second world war was a cheap ploy that had, in large part, relied on the US presence to distract an utterly subdued Japan. Stalin, realizing the war was not where he planned, would have backed down to save face or been assassinated, as probably actually happened, by Beria, Molotov and NikitaBBY. As with the late Czar, Russian peasants have their limits, and the politburo is not stupid. Like Germany, Japan would be made the strong man of Asia sooner, by George Marshall to augment the post-war American grip in the region. In the west, Patton, as at D-day, commands a ghost army to distract the commies, and gets a pair of Lipizzaner stalions to play with in gratitude from Ike. :D

[TarJak]

Germany joins the western alliance?

[Aktungbby]

Germany joins the western alliance?

Not necessarily Germany; just Manstein himself, who was arguably the best commander of WWII and could handle whatever the Russians could throw down except perhaps for Zukov. If Napoleon's assessment of his own marshals is an example, Von M., the classic Prussian officer, was "capable of the great game" in all aspects, including the political of which warfare is only "Other means"; followed by Nimitz and MacArthur. Stalingrad was a frigid mess with the loss of the Sixth Army but Von M. actually had opened an escape window (Operation Winter Storm) and von Paulus couldn't take advantage of it (Operation Thunderclap)...and surrendered (on this date!) 90,000 troops of which only 5,000 made it home to Germany. The real turning point of WWII is the all-out head to head between Von Manstein and Zukov at Kursk! ( Operation Citadel) After Kursk,and all the way back to the Berlin siege, the initiative lies with the Soviets. Hitler's prime military objective to achieve lebensraum is thwarted and the third reich is doomed." The man could do it all on the battlefield, stand up to the Fuhrer, and helped rebuild his country after the war ...the quintessential go-to Prussian von Herr...smart, ruthless and gifted.

[Admiral Halsey]

Ok how about this one? What if Zhukov had been killed during Stalin's purges?

[TarJak]

Germany still gets crushed under the weight of the two front war. Possible that the Elbe is not the line of demarcation and its slightly east of there, but only slightly. With the numbers available and General Winter, Zhukov was not essentially the deciding factor.

Saw an interesting new SF book based on an alternate history this afternoon: http://arcas-art.deviantart.com/journal/Happy-VS-Day-431843151

[Jimbuna]

They expect payment!! :o

[Admiral Halsey]

With the numbers available and General Winter, Zhukov was not essentially the deciding factor. =[/url]

I don't know about that. Zhukov was the only decent general they had at the time and IMO it's a frigging miracle that Stalin didn't kill him before that first winter.

[Oberon]

Aleksandr Vasilevsky, Semyon Timoshenko, and Mikhail Kirponos would like a word.

[Raptor1]

I don't know about that. Zhukov was the only decent general they had at the time and IMO it's a frigging miracle that Stalin didn't kill him before that first winter.

Zhukov was very far from the only decent Soviet general during World War II. He certainly was one of the best, and easily most prominent given his post, but I think that if he had been killed the Red Army would have eventually been put under the command of someone else who is competent. The operational details of the Eastern Front would have certainly been different, and the war would probably have lasted longer than it had, but I think it would have ended up just the same.

More interestingly, I wonder how this could have effected Japan's stance towards the Soviet Union during the war. Zhukov's defeat of the Japanese army in the Battle of Khalkhin Gol is usually cited as one of the primary reasons for the Japanese finally abandoning plans to attack the Soviet Union, but suppose that due to his absence the battle ends up as a draw or even a Japanese victory (Both options are unlikely, given the IJA's general lack of ability at fighting land wars, but still). Could this have prevented Japan from being deterred of fighting a full-scale war against the Soviet Union, possibly leading to them choosing an offensive against Siberia when Operation Barbarossa started over their historical expansion into the South Pacific?

[Oberon]

That would be painful....

For Japan.

(says the guy who had Japanese units sitting in Vladivostok for two years or so in our AWAW game...)

[Dread Knot]

Zhukov was very far from the only decent Soviet general during World War II. He certainly was one of the best, and easily most prominent given his post, but I think that if he had been killed the Red Army would have eventually been put under the command of someone else who is competent. The operational details of the Eastern Front would have certainly been different, and the war would probably have lasted longer than it had, but I think it would have ended up just the same.

More interestingly, I wonder how this could have effected Japan's stance towards the Soviet Union during the war. Zhukov's defeat of the Japanese army in the Battle of Khalkhin Gol is usually cited as one of the primary reasons for the Japanese finally abandoning plans to attack the Soviet Union, but suppose that due to his absence the battle ends up as a draw or even a Japanese victory (Both options are unlikely, given the IJA's general lack of ability at fighting land wars, but still). Could this have prevented Japan from being deterred of fighting a full-scale war against the Soviet Union, possibly leading to them choosing an offensive against Siberia when Operation Barbarossa started over their historical expansion into the South Pacific?

The question in my mind is where does Japan get the oil to sustain this fight? Even if the Japanese conquer all of Sakhalin Island, the output of it's rather minor oilfields was insufficient for the Japanese needs, and the Soviets would have carried out extensive demolitions. So, it will take about a year, and plenty of equipment, to reestablish that insufficient production. Meanwhile, the Japanese ground offensive in Siberia is burning fuel and achieving nothing significant. All the vast oil and gas resources that Siberia is famous for today, were completely unknown and undiscovered in 1939. At some point the US embargo is going to go in place.

Any Japanese offensive in Eastern Siberia is going to sputter to a complete stop in a few months on weather alone. If we add to that the astoundingly bad Japanese logistics and the lack of suitable local infrastructures (read any railroad), the advance onto Vladivostok will stop even earlier. There might be some more hope for a thrust towards Irkutsk but even there the Japanese won't be making much headway. The Soviets will fight to keep the Trans-Siberian open there, and happily yield ground elsewhere, it's not as if the Japanese can do anything with that.

[Admiral Halsey]

Aleksandr Vasilevsky, Semyon Timoshenko, and Mikhail Kirponos would like a word.

Ok I should've said the only decent proven general they had during the start.

[Admiral Halsey]

Anyone else have any thoughts on this before I post the next one? Also would anyone else like to come up with the scenarios for the next couple of weeks? i'm starting to run out and need to replenish the well.

[Admiral Lutjens]

What if the IJA captured Chunking?

[Jimbuna]

What if the IJA captured Chunking?

Do you mean Chongqing, formerly romanized as Chungking, a major city in central China and one of the five national central cities in the People's Republic of China?

[Admiral Lutjens]

Do you mean Chongqing, formerly romanized as Chungking, a major city in central China and one of the five national central cities in the People's Republic of China?

Yes, posting from my phone is a pain. Thank you.

[Dread Knot]

What if the IJA captured Chunking?


Could the Japanese even capture Chiang's capital? One of the reasons Japan found eventually found itself at war with the Allies, was that China was proving to be such a logistical quagmire that the Japanese found themselves looking for other methods to bring China down, such as cutting it off from outside aid. So, In 1940 Japan invaded French Indochina in an effort to embargo all imports into China, including war supplies purchased from the U.S. This move prompted the United States to embargo all oil exports. The result was that Japan found itself in an even more desperate situation than before.

The more I think about it, actually, the less plausible it feels. China is HUGE, especially compared to Japan, and even if Chiang gave in, there's certainly going to be plenty of local generals-turned-warlords willing to give it a go. The stupid ones are going to get stomped flat, but the smart ones are going to go to ground, wait for the bulk of the IJA to pass, and laugh gleefully as they chop up Japanese supply lines behind them. Then there's still Mao and his rather effective Communist Army, and the IJA can have fun digging him out of Yan'an. From my perspective, Japan is simply too small to take down an area as populous and as resistant as China, without taking into consideration the vested interests other major powers.

Despite it being a nice rice bowl to feed the Japanese population, the China tar baby ultimately hamstrung the Japanese war effort. When you look at the campaigns the Japanese waged in China between 1938 and 1944 they were really foraging expeditions rather than battles. They had no greater strategic objective than to keep the countryside in terror, to sack the fields and towns, to keep the Chinese troops at the front off-balance, and to train their own green recruits under fire. The overburdened Japanese economy couldn't afford much else.

[Admiral Halsey]

What if the IJA captured Chunking?

I have to agree with Dread Knot on this. Plus like he said even if Chiang gives in they would still have to deal with Mao.

[Admiral Halsey]

Who wants to go next?

[Admiral Halsey]

Aktungbby gave me this one. What if the war of 1812 was a British victory?

[Cybermat47]

Aktungbby gave me this one. What if the war of 1812 was a British victory?

If Britain keeps control of America until 1914, WWI is over a lot faster. Same goes for WWII if that happens as well.

[Dread Knot]

Aktungbby gave me this one. What if the war of 1812 was a British victory?



The British defeated a American invasion of Canada, invaded the United States and burned down the White House. I'd say that it pretty comes close to counting as a British victory.

After 1812, the US abandoned the militia system which did so poorly in the war and established West Point ,began a professional army and realized it needed a real navy. That's about the best that can be said for the War of 1812.

[Sailor Steve]

The British defeated a American invasion of Canada, invaded the United States and burned down the White House. I'd say that it pretty comes close to counting as a British victory.
The American invasion of Canada was made mostly by militia and repulsed mostly by militia. It wasn't really much of an invasion or much of a war.

The unit that burned Washington (at least four government buildings there) was on the run, and couldn't stick around to occupy it. What really defeated the British was the simple fact that they found it impossible to maintain supply lines across the ocean, a lesson others could have learned later.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=574043&postcount=14

[Dread Knot]

What really defeated the British was the simple fact that they found it impossible to maintain supply lines across the ocean, a lesson others could have learned later.


I think that really gets the crux of the matter. In the event of a major British victory I could see the US agreeing to cede upper Maine to Canada, and some minor Great Lake border changes, or the creation of a neutral Indian state, in return for New Orleans. What I don't see is Britain ever reclaiming it's 13 former American colonies. The effort would have been too consuming, and by 1812, with the increasing British preoccupation with Europe that ship had sailed.

[Oberon]

To be honest, both sides won the war of 1812, the British had their propaganda victory by razing the 'White House' (before it was white), as well as defending Canada. The Americans had their victory at New Orleans, and then reorganising post-war into a more effective military force, which would come in handy for the North forty years later.

If the British had won in New Orleans, I doubt much would have changed, it was essentially a side-show in the Napoleonic war in Europe, and Britain wouldn't have been able to spare the military power to enforce any stringent demands, it would have just given the British a little extra to gloat about whenever the War of Independence came up in conversations in neutral ports. :03:

[Tribesman]

The unit that burned Washington (at least four government buildings there) was on the run
On the run?
Raids to burn and lay waste towns and districts accessible from the coast, while avoiding extended operations inland.

What really defeated the British was the simple fact that they found it impossible to maintain supply lines across the ocean, a lesson others could have learned later.

The British were not defeated. Status quo ante was the terms.
Since it was America that declared war and America that set out its war aims and America that agreed to forget its aims and go back to exactly what it had before it started, so if anyone was defeated it was the US.
Maintaining supply lines across the ocean was no problem, British shipping boomed. Maintaining supply lines on the land was the issue they faced.

[Aktungbby]

Thanks for reintroducing the question Halsey! More takers this time.

[mapuc]

I have two new task to discuss, when you're finish discussing the last one.

Markus

[TarJak]

y1812 was a draw at best for USA and minor victory to Brtain at worst. Britain had bigger fish to fry in Europe so the effort to comprehensively defeat US in 1812 leads to France taking a bit more advantage on the continent. The RN though is big enough to keep them restricted to Europe as they have not found an effective way of breaking the naval blockades.

Britain's biggest headache having spent her gournd troops on retaking her colonial miscreants is now maintaining a strong enough garrison against the guerilla tactics that the US militia groups are now using to disrupt British rule. This disruption is uncoordinated however as the US government sued for peace after 8 of the 13 colonies had been retaken by Britain.

Longer term effects, Britain cedes 3 of the hardest to control colonies in the south drawing a new "Canadian" border along Mason Dixon line consoildating hold on the northern states.

Napoleonic war continues for several more years beyond 1815 and his Waterloo doesn't occur until 1822. after a second failed attempt to force the issue in the East with a second invasion of Russia.

[Raptor1]

Even if Britain diverts efforts to America in 1812, the Napoleonic Wars are not impacted in the slightest. Even if Britain strips the Spanish campaign and rushes reinforcements immediately at the start of the war (which is very unlikely), the decisive campaigns in Russia and Germany would still be fought on schedule and Napoleon would be forced to abdicate at about the same time he historically did in 1814. The campaign in Spain might take a longer time to complete but the end result is the same when France falls to the Sixth Coalition.

Waterloo was mostly fought with completely fresh troops as the veterans of the Peninsular War were in fact shipped to America, but if Britain doesn't even spare that Napoleon would most likely end up being defeated by Russia or Austria somewhere in 1815.