JerseyJohn
-
Posts
6,549 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by JerseyJohn
-
-
Originally posted by arado234:
Whats scary blashy is that if what JerseyJohn said did happen i wonder who and how many countries would have had the atomic bomb by then.Having not been used yet(we all know human nature in that seeing is believing)there may have been a ''mini''nuclear war just to try them out.YAHOO
:eek: Blashy predicted WWII would have resumed within a decade or so -- ~1950. I agree with your reasoning, the A-bomb might well have been developed by one or more nations in the interim, along with functional delivery systems.
-- Of course we have to remember that both The Manhattan Project and the development of the B-29 were mammoth operations that would have been hard to conduct with peacetime budgets. But if the will were present the results surely would have followed.
-
Blashy,
Agree all the way through. I didn't say Germany would be able to rule it's new-found empire indefinitely or even that there'd be a long lasting peace. In fact, as I said, even before the ink was dry the UK and France would have needed to be planning for the next round.
Regarding the colonies. Germany could have sent much larger occupation forces to both the Indies and the Congo than Holland and Belgium had managed. I'm sure there would have been a transition period, probably the same ships that brought German troops to the new colonial holdings would have been returning with the Belgium and Dutch garrisons that had been replaced.
The Indonesians were known prior to WWII to be the most cooperative of all colonial people. That was an illusion, of course. When the Japanese invaded the resident Dutch sought out the Japanese troops as saviors because their former subjects were butchering them! And we all know about the viciousness on both sides in places like the Congo, Algeria and Vietnam as they rebelled against their European landlords. So there's a lot of truth in what you're saying, but at least temporarily it would have been possible for Germany to hold the Congo and East Indies against internal rebellion; neither Holland or Belgium found it difficult prior to WWII.
The only way a large empire can exist for any period of time is if it's entire population feels it is a part of it. Winston Churchill opened his History of the English Speaking Peoples by saying the happiest time known to the British Isles would have during the last two centuries of Roman rule! The reason for that incredible statement is they regarded themselves as Roman citizens. During those two centuries they were treated fairly and, has often been pointed out by historians, whether standing on British soil or in the middle of Turkey, it was all Rome.
The British Empire was, in many ways, modelled after the Roman system. Hitler had no clue as to any of this, his simplistic answer to why so few Britains could rule so many times their number worldwide was that they were Aryans and vastly superior to their subjects. Which is nonsense, of course. The British, like the Romans, found the key, which was to have the parts of their empire ruling themselves as part of Great Britain. Yet, even this began falling apart by the 20th Century. After a while it becomes difficult to convince people on the other side of the world that they're actually British of a different color (and of course there was always a great deal of racial prejudice).
Anyway, sure there would have been a next part to the Second World War exactly as in many ways that war itself was a second part to the First World War.
-- My feelind is it would have begun with either Britain or the United States, or both, encouraging Japan to oust Germany from the East Indies. They'd have worried about dealing with the expanded Japanese Empire afterwards but the immediate benefit would have been the destruction of the Berlin-Tokyo Axis and the reduction of Germany's colonial influences.
BTW -- in the late 1930s Germany began resurrecting the defunct Imperial Colonial Office -- renamed Reich Colonial Office, of course. It never actually became functional, of course.
-- Another issue would be Iceland, but I don't think Germany would have been allowed to occupy it; both the UK and USA would have blocked such a move. If Denmark were kept as part of the Reich, Iceland would simply have become independant.
-
Retributar,
Appreciated, you've got me walking on air.
Spelling has always been my Achilles heel. I hope I've spelled that correctly.
Deepest apologies to all Alsacians and Lorranians and their descendants.
-- A movie? Hmmm, now there's an idea. I've been doing a lot of research for two future alternate history projects, both of which we've been discussing in this thread.
One is a novel that begins after the UK and France signing a joint peace treaty with Germany in 1940. The BEF was captured in Belgium and Paris falls shortly afterward. The story would be seen through various characters living in Germany, the United States, UK, France and the USSR.
The second begins with World War One ending in early 1918 with Imperial Germany pulling out of France and Belgium in exchange for recognition of it's gains in the east (Treaty of Brest-Litovsk recognized). Again, there would be characters in several major countries.
This thread has been extremely helpful with both of them. I'm always amazed at the depth and insight of this forum's members. :cool:
-
Blashy,
Not too many years before the start of the First World War a biplane took off from one side of the English Channel and landed on the other. Most people on both sides whooped and celebrated except for one British MP. He told a newspaperman, "This changes everything." Few people understood what he really meant at the time but a few years later it would become obvious.
I think that's the situation here, if the UK had been forced to agree to peace terms with a victorious Germany. It would have been the Germans dictating the terms, not the British -- the British Isles would never again have had the secure isolation they enjoyed against Napoleon and those who came before him. They would have been a target now, same as any other nation and having a powerful navy would no longer be enough to ensure immunity from invasion.
With the 300,000 or so men lost in Belgium and France no longer a continental shield against the victorious Germans I believe the overwhelming cry would have been peace regardless of the terms, short of actual surrender. If Churchill, under those circumstances, would have made a fight them on the beeches speach he'd have been booted out of office. I think it would have been that simple.
Britain wants France restored as nation. The existence of that country would have been seen as vital to Britain's security.
-- I'm sure Germany would have agreed, no doubt demanding that Alsace and Loraine be given back to them and, of course, the French would have consented. This would also have placed most of the Maginot Line in German territory.
The UK and France both want Germany to withdraw from Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway.
-- I doubt Germany would have gone along with all of that.
I think it would have withdrawn from Belgium, but it would have claimed the Congo as a German colony for it's natural resources, including uranium. -- I'm pretty sure all involved would have agreed to that; the main thing was to not have German troops and air units stationed where they could turn south and take Paris or turn the other way and bomb London.
UK and France wants Germany to leave Holland, Denmark and Norway.
Here I think Nazi racism would have called the shots. It would have been claimed that those populations were German and had to absorbed into the Reich.
-- This puts German air bases in Holland within easy striking distance of Britain.
-- It would give Germany the Dutch East Indies and it's own supply of oil.
-- The addition of Denmark would give Germany a lock on the Baltic Sea, and Norway, in addition to it's value as an ore and mineral source, would have provided invaluable naval bases along the North Sea.
Germany refuses to withdraw from any of those three countries. Do the French, conquered outright by the Reich make withdrawal an absolute condition? I'm sure they wouldn't. Does Britain, with it's population demanding an immediate cessation of hostilities make this issue an absolute condition? I really don't think so. I think the feeling would have been have peace now with the return of 300,000 POWs and put things back together afterwards.
So, to me anyway, the post 1940 situation would have been:
Germany gains* Western Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland and Alsace-Loraine on the continent. It further gaines the Belgian Congo and Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) as overseas colonies.
France regains it's sovereignty.
Britain gains an exit from a disasterous war that would have cost it's Empire to continue -- Chamberlain understood this when he went to Munich, that Britain was holding it's colonies, particularly India, by the barest of margins and even a victorious major war would have resulted in their (inevitable) independence.
Aftermath:
Germany would have needed to adjust it's thinking, particularly regarding the USSR. It would now have had the prospect of the UK and France preparing for a future war, this one aimed at dislodging Germany's colonies and new territories. The United States would have lost some of it's isolationism. And Japan would have been eyeing the East Indies and reconsidering it's pact with the Reich. A prolonged war in Russia, probably leading to a two front war with the west ultimately joining in, would have been an obvious disaster for Germany.
All speculation, of course, but that's my view of what a 1940 pro-Axis peace settlement would have looked like.
-- Of course I agree about the western nations being just as greed driven as the Axis, though a bit more subtle in their approach. This would have been coming back to haunt them in the Middle East, where, with the war over and Germany coming out on top, there would have been a lot of agitation against both France and Britain in Iraq and Syria.
*Czechoslovakia, Austria and the Rhineland (unless you mean the French side of it) would not have been on the table, Germany already absorbed them before the invasion of Poland with both the UK and Britain having accepted all of it.
Arado,
Agreed with what you're saying. I can't see any way the UK would have continued after such a catastrophe as losing the BEF -- coupled with the collapse of France.
-
arado234
I don't think destroying the BEF would have caused the UK to surrender and I'm pretty sure that isn't what you meant. But I do believe a couple of months later, with the fall of France, Britain would have signed a peace treaty along with France -- which the French historically felt they should have done anyway, the condition being that Germany pull out of the occupied French territory.
Fully agreed on all the points you've made. Hitler's absurd and tragic mass murderings and treatment of tens of millions as though they were sub-human slaves, in my opinion, virtually assured that Germany could not have won the war.
-- What I still can't understand is how he realized the Russian people would welcome being liberated from Soviet rule, expected them to welcome Germany as liberators, which they did, and in return becomes a far worse oppressor than what they were being liberated from. It made no sense. In Lost Victories von Manstein discusses this at length. He didn't understand it either.
Blashy,
Appreciated my friend (sorry for the delayed response) very glad you enjoyed those two mods of mine. The WWI scenario must have been by von Mannerheim, I play-tested it with Comrade Trapp and the three of us felt the SC1 editor couldn't do the job and it would only work if both players agreed to fairly strict house rules.
In the Brest-Litovsk Aftermath a made an irreversible mistake, placing the Montgomery HQ on the map and then deleting it, which meant it was no longer available. I didn't realize that till Iron Ranger pointed it out to me. A few people wrote later on and told me it was a good idea for play balance. If it was then the outcome was pure luck on my part.
Looking forward to using the new tools Hubert is creating, but it will be a long time till I'll be able to work on these things. If, before then, anyone wants to create their own versions I'd be more than glad to offer my thoughts on what the altered historical situations would have been.
Minty,
Exactly. Germany would have had a much greater problem in occupying and controling the conquered territory than it had in the actual conquests.
Germany's only chance to hold such a huge empire was to administer it with the cooperation of the subject people. Instead Hitler said they were swine and subhuman and reduced them slaves whose food was freely plundered placing them on a permanent starvation level. Absurd, of course they rose up against their new masters.
Alexander the Great understood these things. So did Caesar and Napoleon. Fortunately for humanity, Hitler had little in common with any of those three.
[ June 28, 2007, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
By Jove, SeaMonkey, I vaguely remember that guy too!Originally posted by SeaMonkey:Wow!!! Now this reminds me of the old SC forum days.
Seems we're going down the road to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
Do I recollect a designer of a campaign of the same name set in SC fashion? Along with that other classic "Z-Plan". Could be my memory escapes me.....could be........NOT!
If I can ever figure out how to handle the SC2 editor I'll be making new versions of those things. I've spent four years thinking about how I'd do them differently next time and now that next time is here I've got to put myself in gear. -- Or, as Hubert would say, " "
And it's become all the more hallowed with your entering.Can't add anything here but an opinion already expressed......just had to shamelessly enter into such a civil discussion feeling honored to be in hallowed company.
Agreed. That's why we all love the place. :cool:Dissent or concur, doesn't matter, the SC forum has always represented a lively platform for respectful exchanges of ideas.
Appreciated my friend on behalf of myself and our esteemed colleagues. With major world leaders dropping hints about their country's nuclear capacity I do believe your point is well taken. Perhaps the U. N. needs to set up something like this discussion forum?Gentlemen...I salute you. Could be the world might learn something from examining this small microcosm.Targul,
Agreed. Through all of our discussions here I kept thinking about Ghengis Khann with his slaughtering of countless Chinese, Persians and Indians. Also, modern examples such as Rwanda, Cambodia and the Sudan. As a species we really don't seem to learn from our past barbarities.
Blashy,
Appreciated and likewise, I always enjoy your posts. :cool:
Of course I agree 100% with what you're saying about European history if Germany had made peace with UK and France in early 1918.
-- And what you said is the exact premise of my 2003 SC mod Brest-Litovsk Aftermath . The idea is the peace treaty bought two decades of stability but in 1939 Stalin (all things having been constant in the USSR) invades the German protectorate of Ukrania, triggering World War Two. Within a few days Germany declares war on the Soviet Union.
Britain and France, who after the 1918 peace treaty did indeed become fearful of the super-power Germany had developed into, became the USSR's ally during the 1920s. Now they go to war too, against Germany.
-- Italy and Finland enter the war on Germany's side with Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria to follow later on.
It was a difficult scenario to play, I only did so once myself, as the Axis against Carl von Mannerheim with SeaMonkey becoming the mod's greatest enthusiast.
-- I'm planning to make an SC2 version when I feel confident enough with the game system.
[ June 21, 2007, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
The big tragedy of WWI's ending came a year before the Armistace, in the interim between the arrival of American troops in France and the Russian collapse. Germany agreed to peace in the east and gained huge of tracts of former Czarist Russia, including all of Poland.
Britain and France offered a peace treaty that would have recognized Germany's gains in the east in exchange for return of occupied territory in Belgium and France. Kaiser Wilhelm II wanted to accept the treaty but was bullied by his generals into refusing. Hindenburg and Ludendorff threatened to resign if Germany accepted a peace treaty that would have quadrupled their 1914 borders -- and the Kaiser backed down to them. A truly absurd situation, his two top generals threatening to resign if the country were given peace -- and they were put out of work.
We all know how absurd the Versailles Treaty was, lesser known is that British naval blockade remained in place for a full year after the war ended, causing a catostraphic situation in Germany to become totally hopeless.
All things considered, when Hitler said Germany's future lay in the east he was playing on a sentiment most German's felt anyway, that those were territories that had been stolen from them. Add to that Silesia, the Danzig Corridor and other territories taken away and all the groundwork was laid for any German leader making the promises Hiter rode to power, to restore Germany's former greatness and regain its stolen territories.
-- There's an interesting difference in the way Germany treated the eastern European people during the two wars. In WWI the Ukranians and other Russians accepted Imperial German occupation willingly and were fairly treated. They were not regarded as subhuman. A little over twenty years later they welcomed the sons of those troops as liberators and this time their food was confiscated as they were randomly brutalized and slaughtered reduced to slavery and starved. The slogan "Kill your German" was not handed down by Stalin, it was the common cry of occupied Russia and most other occupied populations.
So one basic alternate scenario is how Germany's war would have gone if it had a less insane occupation policy.
Regarding Hitler as an effective leader, he had a good mind for detail, many of his generals acknowledged that, often grudgingly. But I find it impossible to regard him as a great, or even good national leader. His methods worked well because the Germans were desperate as he grabbed power from the Weimar government. I don't fault him because all of his future plans were predicated on conquest, what I really hate is his desire to liquidate tens of millions of people, aside from the Jews, also the Poles, Slavs, Gypsies for entirely racial reasons, along with anyone who didn't fit his ideal of who should or shouldn't be allowed to continue breathing.
As Xwormwood said so well, in the end he showed contempt for the Germans. One of his last utterances was that the mongrel Slavs had proven themselves superior after all. As the Gotterdammerung he created played out he did his best to assure the extinction of the people he'd ruined. They failed him and now deserved nothing better than extermination.
It's impossible fo me to see him as a great leader.
-
targul,
This is a very sensitive area, of course. Hitler, like Mussolini, was a very successful leader till he started WWII. He had a lot of natural ability and a talent for selecting the right people to get things done for him. But, tragically, he was an extreme sociopath and so were many of the people he inserted in high places.
His accomplishments, the ones you've mentioned, are undeniable, though some say Germany was already recovering economically when he took it over from the Weimar Republic.
-- But the thing is, did he need to kill millions of people in order to get things done? Marking for death tens of millions more as part of his victory plan?
I think the Hollocaust alone rules out referring to him as great. The weird part is I have sympathy for him, believe he was disturbed for very understandable reasons by the time he was in his teens, and went insane during the First World War. In another time and place he'd have been a harmless racist, perhaps selling fair to midling paintings for a living. But as a world leader his waves of success, which unfortunately included succeeding in killing many millions of innocent civilians he had contempt for, can't be confused for greatness.
A madman in an age of insanity.
-
Blashy,
Appreciated and likewise.
I agree about USSR not giving up plunder as the Soviets were very good at pulling everything of any value back with them, or destroying it, sabotaging mines and oil wells making them useless for months or years afterwards.
Theoretically, if Germany could have utilized all that conquered territory, including all of European Russia in the hypothetical situation we were discussing, I think it would have been a match even for the United States. But saddled with the Nazi racist insanity they'd have greatly reduced their own chances. It's hard to get much out of people who are officially treated as subhumans. Even harder to get anything useful from the millions being stupidly executed.
-- Set out tonight to buy a book on the late German bomber designs, should have gotten it when I first saw it, now it was gone. Wound up buyting something equally interesting that fits right in here: Himmler's Crusade, The Nazi Expedition To Find The Origins Of The Aryan Race. Should be interesting.
I've always felt the Third Reich, even if it had won militarily and settled at whatever boundry with the USSR while at peace with the UK, would have wound up toppled from within. I can't imagine a modern society going on for very long that consumes so much of it's own population for the sake of petty personal hatreds and prejudice.
Stalin's Organist,
In total agreement.
-- The only chance Germany had was if it not only won militarily but also changed its self-destructive racial policies.
But here too, if the invading Germans had offered something better than what Stalin had given the Russian people -- they were welcomed as liberators when they first came in -- it might have been possible for them to have actually won. But even here, it's hard to imagine that sprawling into Asia. Failing that, the remnant of the USSR would have worked toward reconquering it's European territory. I think the United States would have put its hatred of Bolshevism on the back burner and provided them with full support via Alaska.
Japan -- ?
I can't help but think it would have made a grab for the Dutch East Indies and French Indochina. The only question is whether they'd have attempted it without also attacking the United States. If they did I don't believe the U. S. would have, or could have, DoW'd on them, probably not even if they'd attacked the UK in Malay/Singapore.
-- All of these scenarios could be simulated in mods designed specifically for the situation. If I had the SC2 specific knowledge I'd attempt at least one of them. Might do so some time in the future, but I'm really shaky on this system, just haven't worked with it enough, or even played the game often enough to have much understanding of its mechanics.
-
Blashy,
We're pretty much on the same wavelength. :cool:
After the fall of France, Britain could only have made peace with Germany as an absolute last resort. I think Churchill was talking reality, what was perfectly obvious, when he said Britain could not agree to terms with Nazi Germany (I use the N word because I don't want people to think I regard Germans as Nazis, I don't).
-- A peace treaty would have left Germany with a huge manpower base, tremendous increase in resources and industrial capacity and, extremely important, all the continental land on the North Sea and English Channel. There's no doubt in my mind that Hitler would have armed to the teeth afterwards and set up forward airbases within easy flying distance of London. Naturally, not being at war, it would also have continued on it's prewar path of jet aircraft development (it had a working prototype in the spring of 1939!) and, beyond a doubt, would have proceeded with it's rocket and development program. Even if peace had continued, the UK would have found itself ever more at Germany's mercy. As you said, the shift in power that would have been realized.
The United States, beyond a doubt, would have continued arming but mainly in the context of a war with Japan. A whole different topic I'll avoid going into unless we have to later on.
-- Eventually the situation would have to come to a head. As you said in your earlier post, Hitler said, blatantly, in Mein Kampf that Germany's future was in the east, to conquer all of Russia west of the Urals and repopulate it with German overlords. Stalin realized that and, without a western war keeping Germany occupied, he would definitely have needed to take realistic measures for the German invasion that, inevitably, would have been directed at him.
Anyway, don't quite know how much of this can be gotten into a war game but I thought it would be a good line to discuss.
Enjoying the topic. Agree that a UK-Reich peace treaty would have been the next thing to a British surrender. Also agree that afterwards Germany would have secured it's coast while, at some point probably quite soon, would have turned east.
-- In that scenario, where Germany doesn't have a war at it's back, I believe the USSR would have been driven back to the Urals but would not have surrendered. Nor do I believe Germany could have successfully occupied the conquered territory and at the same time continued pushing the Soviets farther east, so at some point the USSR stabalizes and begins counter offensives. If the German occupation is historical the rear areas would be teaming with partisans, much worse than it was historically, and European Russia, again this is only my own opinion, goes into a nightmare existence of wars, truces, and resumed wars.
-- Which leaves Britain rebuilding, the United States arming and Japan drooling over former French and Dutch colonies, all as variables.
A second disclaimer, I realize much of this is beyond the scope of SC2 and similar games. Don't know how these things could be put in, but I'd love to see it.
-
Stalin's Organist
I agree completely.
What I'm saying is SC2 and similar games would gain by having more emphasis on geo-political factors.
It would be the only way I can see to come up with valid variety.
Of course the basic assumption is that we, as the player, are replacing Hitler; there hasn't been a coups or revolution, just we're calling the shots instead of Hitler or Stalin or whoever else led the country.
As for changed historical decisions, I'd like to somehow play it without the Nazi agenda. It feels more than a little sick playing for a Nazi victory but, of course, we're all looking at these things from a purely military view (I hope) and not in terms of implementing the Final Solution.
Blashy,
Of course. But what I'm saying is it would be good, as the Axis, to take the course of the war in a different direction from that taken by Hitler.
All countries make plans to invade other countries or at least to conduct successful wars against them. The United States two ocean strategy followed a much early study called Red-Yellow, a hypothetical war of the United States against Japan and -- Britain!
True about production figures, but there are other factors and, as I said, it would have been easy enough for Germany to have not gotten into a war with the United States. Stalin was not rushing to go to war with Germany and, if he had initiated it and it fell apart he'd have been driven from power. He knew that fully well.
As has been said many times, if the game has to follow the historical path it has to get the historical result. The further we go from that the more variety we'll get.
The key, as we all know, is to not get so far from historical reality as to wander into the realm of historical fantasy.
-
There's always someone who posts that Germany had to be defeated and, most recently, that the victory condition shouldn't be whether the Axis can win, but how long they can hold out.
Rubbish!
Why do we have to see the war in Europe as something that had to keep expanding indefinitely till the Axis reached a point of no return?
The basic Axis problem was Hitler could never take yes for an answer. The more successes he was handed the more blinded he became to anything other than what he was sure would happen next. By the time he invaded the USSR the only possibility he would consider was the country's collapse within a few months. But suppose we consider various points along the way and how someone less insane, one of us for example, would have done things differently?
1) -- Having rebuilt the German army and air force Hitler believed he could use it to win two quick local wars without drawing Britain and France into a DoW on Germany.
-- Czechoslovakia
He wanted what he thought would be a quick war here so he could show off Germany's new military might and set the groundwork for his next move, which would be against Poland. Hitler was actually angry that Mussolini set up the Munich Conference as he wanted the local war so badly. When the UK and especially France (which was allied with the Czechs) caved in, Hitler became convinced that a quick crush of Poland would be an even better opportunity.
Contrary to popular myth, the German army was not planning to assault the Sudetanland fortifications. Having absorbed Austria, there would have no need to do so, the drive would have been south of those positions and straight for Prague. Even so, considering that small country's military preparedness it would have been a hard and costly campaign with the Czech's possibly being able to hold out till Britain and France were mobilized and able to go on the offensive. In any case, it was definitely a better Allied position than existed the following year.
-- Poland
Up till Germany's seizure of Slovakia and the start of demands for the Danzig Corridor, Poland was a cooperative state. So much so that other Baltic and Balkan countries declined to throw in with her because they considered it too pro-German.
A new situation, France having sold out it's previous ally joins Britain in a defensive treaty with the Poles. After Slovakia Hitler believed the western nations would reneg once again and, even if they did declare war, wouldn't actually fight over the place. So, his territorial demands refused, he invaded. Poland didn't begin serious mobilization till the last day of August 39, only one day before being invaded.
Having conquered Poland and finding himself at war with France and the Uk-Commonwealth, Hitler believed there would be peace in the Spring. In the early stages he didn't imagine his forces could actually conquer France, instead his ambition was to add Denmark and Norway and, if the war continued, to keep the British and French pinned down in the Low Countries till war weariness set in and a settlement agreed upon.
Stalin saw a similar scenario, Germany and the two western Allies exhausting themselves while the USSR repaired the military purges and prepared for a later war, probably with Germany.
-- Up to this point WWII was strictly a European War. The United States sought to remain nutral and the USSR had no desire to become involved.
Spring 1940, Denmark and Norway conquered by the Axis. Same basic situation. In the United States public sentiment against Germany was growing, but the mood was still for neutrality.
Germany conquers the Low Countries then France.
The UK will not agree to peace unless it's in danger of being starved by a successful blockade, or invaded.
-- At this point, with the November presidential election coming up, FDR is still forced to claim America's desire to steer clear of war despite leaning toward Great Britain. The R. A. F. wins a pyhric victory agains the Luftwaffe and the situation falls into a stalemate; Germany can't invade Britain and Britain can't possibly retake mainland Europe.
- U. S. S. R. is still neutral and not prepared for war against Germany and it's allies.
- U. S. A., after FDR's reelection is openly aiding the UK but also apprehensive about Japan.
-- This is a juncture. What if Germany fortifies it's eastern frontiers, does not plan on invading the USSR and, instead, goes all out to win the submarine war against the UK?
Elsewhere, Italy has entered in the Mediteranean and managed to aggressively initiate its own military catastrophes.
-- Nazism is viewed very sympathetically in the Middle East where pro-German and anti-British/French sympathies are very high. Moslem leaders turn to Berlin for help but Hitler, foolishly seeing the region as being in Italy's sphere, does not respond. When an uprising to oust the British from Iraq comes about in 1941 it fails when Britain, hopelessly outnumbered on the ground uses obsolete training aircraft to control of the sky. Germany, finally realizing it's error, sends support but it arrives too late.
Meanwhile, Rommel has captured Tobruk in Libya and is driving toward Alexandria.
-- What happens if the Middle East is a constant without Germany having launched Barbarossa?
Britain is against the wall in the Atlantic due to greatly increased U-Boat activity and Germany, not fighting in the USSR, is able to exert real pressure in the naval war as well as the Middle East and North Africa.
-- Without a Russo-German War does Japan still attack the United States?
At what point does the United States go to war with Germany? Roosevelt can't declare war without congressional approval, and that isn't coming without a direct attack on the United States or one of it's territories.
To me this situation is a very realistic alternative. It's the path Hitler himself knew he should have taken when looking back after his first setbacks in Russia (evidenced in the Finnish tape with Mannerheim 1942).
Naturally, in game terms, this possiblity is avoided because sooner or later it's an Axis victory; Britain cannot continue at war indefinitely without either the USSR or USA fighting with her.
-- And, without being invaded by Germany, there's always the possibility of the USSR actually joining the Axis (that was actually discussed even while Hitler was massing troops in Poland) and turning toward the Indian Ocean to Iran and India.
Anyway, I think it's wrong to say Germany couldn't have won. As was pointed out by Urban Shocker in another thread, there was always the Indirect Approach, of sidestepping drastic moves and winning one stage at a time.
That's something Hitler sought to achieve in the late 30s with his plan of expansion through small wars, but deviated from after Poland and forgot about all together when he invaded the USSR.
-- I think these alternate situations should be considered in any discussion of Allied victory and Axis defeat, and should also be incorporated into the game other than the choice to just set the USA and USSR to neutral.
-- Thread Title Renamed July 7 & July 9 so late posts will still be on topic.
[ July 09, 2007, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
Greetings Urban. I liked that book too, had a copy back in the sixties when Lidell Hart was still among the living and his books were very popular in the United States.
Sun-tzu also discusses the indirect approach quite a bit in The Art of War . It was interesting to read somewhere that the Roman emperor Tiberius, as a general, used similar tactics regularly against the German tribes; things preventive campaigns to destroy provisions they might have built up for a planned campaign against the Romans.
Anyway, what drew me here -- I'm a lurker these days -- is your screen name. Always good to see an oldtime baseball player remembered.
-
Thanks for passing on this timely warning Bill. And please thank Hrvatkovic for me, I didn't realize Gunther Rall uses magnetic bullets, having that information is a real lifesaver!
Also, he's in here now eating bacon and eggs. I was trying to be a gracious guest and had cereal, didn't know he was so obsessed with bacon but seeing the way he guards the plate while devouring it I'm glad I decided to let the guy have it all. :cool:
Magnetic bullets -- gosh am I ever glad now that I made a lead headshield. Never thought I'd need to use it -- oh, eating my corn flakes is a little hard wearing that thing, crushing my skull -- OH! got it off, guess I'll have to risk the magnetic bullets. Anyway, I don't think he shoots people just because they happen to have a metal head.
-
Interesting More and More and MoreMore articles and photos, xwormwood. The novel Catch-22 has a character who is a bomber pilot at an American base in Italy whose objective is to fly to Switzerland and sit out the rest of the war.
This infor is particularly useful to me as something I'm working on involves the months immediately following the war in Europe and various people passing from Germany and Northern Italy into Switzerland both before and after the German surrender. Thanks for posting it.
Anyway, regarding this topic, I think it's idea is to stop the possibility of airwings crossing neutral air space, carrying out a mission, recrossing it and returning to base, along with paradrops being made that couldn't otherwise have happened if neutral borders weren't violated. Both of which are valid points and I hope Hubert will fix these issues.
-
Oh, the old Switzerland for Sweden mixup. Those Swiss sure get around!
-
I agree Arado.
On this scale I think the country would be forced to join the other side -- imagine an entire air fleet violating a country's territory. I'm sure they'd be shot at and, if possible, intercepted, either of which would almost certainly lead to a war.
-
arado234
This topic came up three or four years ago in the SC-1 Forum, and some interesting things came to light.
In the spring of 1940, for example, Switzerland (edited - should read Sweden -- thanks xwormwood for pointing it out
) allowed German troops near Narvik to be supplied through their country when they were totally cut off on the Norwegian side. Also, some trains were allowed to move through Swedish territory that were known to have been carrying reinforcements for that otherwise doomed command.I agree that, in game terms, there should certainly be a reaction from overflights and territorial violations of neutral territory, if for nothing else than because on this scale such violations would be impossible to ignore. But the truth is, nations generally go with the flow; if the violation is by a neighbor who can just as easily conquer the country, it's not generally made a huge issue of.
-- Similarly, a couple of days before the German invasion of Poland, some German infantry strayed across the border and began firing a bit early. Some were killed in battle, along with Poles, and the rest withdrew till it was time to make the jump off with the rest of the armies. It isn't surprising that Poland didn't declare war over this, but I do find it surprising that the story wasn't made a big issue prior to Sept 1st -- it was reported in Britain, the U. S. and France as minor violence along the German-Polish border.
Anyway, getting back to the point here, I'd favor an adjustment that prevents such actions.
Jolly-Guy's move should be illegal, and impossible for the game to execute. And to do such a thing against Terif is clearly a sacrilege! :eek:
Stalin's Organist,
True, and an interesting point. Stalin's air generals practically pleaded with him to allow them to at least warn and escort the spy planes back to the border, if not shoot them down outright, but he wouldn't allow any action he felt would be provocative to the Germans.
I don't know if there's any way in game terms to duplicate the one sided arrangement between Germany and the USSR prior to Barbarossa.
[ March 20, 2007, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
During WWII Germany complained to the Swiss that, whenever their planes strayed they were promptly confronted by German made ME-109 fighters. But the Swiss seemed more tolerant of American bombers skirting their borders.
On at least one occasion, when the United States was angered by Swiss activities such as diverting electricity to Germany, U. S. bombers would accidently drop too close to the border and a lot would stray across into Switzerland. Next day there would be an apology. The Swiss always got the hint.
-
Along similar lines, the United States Atlantic/Pacific strategy of WWII closely followed the plans and wargame results of a study called Red Yellow from the 1920s, which planned for a hypothetical war between the United States, and Great Britain!
I doubt any of the planners believed that war would actually come about, but nations routinely plan for all conceivable combinations of adversaries.
-
That message, given twice, comes 7,225 posts too late. Where were you in Oct 2002, when I might actually have taken it?
-
adolfi,
mir kommen die tränen =(?)that come water me
Hmmm -- well, if that means you'll drop by when you get a chance, fine, we're looking forward to it.
-
Liam,
Appreciated, and likewise, you make a huge difference in this site. :cool:
Tragically unlucky, yes, know the feeling. I was in the USAF at the height of the Vietnam and became a battle casualty in northern Maine when a sleepy kid ran me over with a tractor (we used to call them tugs). Fortunately I fell between the huge tires or I'd be writing this from the Great Beyond. A lot of soldiers, airmen and sailors get killed in ways that have nothing to do with the actual fighting. In many wars, like the Crimean and American Civil War, disease accounted for many times more deaths than battle. That always seemed unfair to me, you put on a uniform and, if you're going to buy it or be injured during the war, it ought to at least be in battle.
n0kn0k
It's hard pinning the guy down to one identity, always was!
-
adolfi, it isn't that what you're saying is so far from some of my own opinions, and those of many others, it's just that you're saying it in the wrong place.
Come fish the waters of SCBuntaland, where trawlers of all sizes can safely put into port.
Just click on the link in either my signature, or Kuniworth's.
:eek: 
Specific Battles
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted
Great suggestions, Retributar.
In a sense this goes back to Kuniworth's Waterloo scenario and the question of whether SC2 is better suited to the battle or the overall campaign.
I've always been inclined toward the campaign level, so my view is similar to Targul's.