|
Klaus88 posted:Is there ANY scenario that ends with Nazi Germany winning WWII? Aside from, not being Nazi Germany in the first place? If they stopped expanding after annexing Czechoslovakia.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:51
|
|
I apologize in advance for the vagueness of that question.
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
Chamale posted:If they stopped expanding after annexing Czechoslovakia. Wouldn't the German economy have flamed out and imploded if they did that? On account of being geared up pretty much entirely for war and not being at all sustainable without war plunder. Which isn't really all that sustainable either, but hey. Come to think of it, an alt-history novel about Nazi Germany winning WW2, becoming the European hegemon, and then promptly collapsing into total financial meltdown because of hilariously terrible Nazi mismanagement and losing pretty much everything they won could possibly make a good read.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:2. Barbarossa goes off much better than historical and they manage to capture Moscow, maybe even Leningrad, and that causes the collapse of the Soviet Union. Isn't the real question how this could possibly have happened though? The Germans taking Moscow means they aren't doing something like encircling Kiev, and then that's drat near a million Soviet troops that are freed up and will certainly threaten the line of supply supporting a drive on Moscow. The Germans still need to find a way to survive the winter of '41, which is going to be pretty difficult if you just threw your whole force into Moscow. I guess you can assume that the Germans just get preposterously lucky at every turn, but I'm sympathetic to the reading that they already had gotten damned lucky in the real version. The big counterfactuals do come from questions like "what if Britain made peace" or "what if Japan attacked the Soviet Union", but neither of those actors had any intention of doing so. Sober, polite Churchill and all that, although I do understand why you're entertaining the idea. Assuming Britain had bowed out of the war, what additional forces would Germany have had available? Is it more than just the Afrika Korps' single armoured division?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 18:30
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
You'd also need to keep the United States out of the war, which in real life was precipitated by Japan trying to punch us in the nose and not hitting hard enough (and then Germany goes "Welp, may as well" and declares war on the US to give them a reason to invade Europe). So either Japan never attacks the US (or the strike on Pearl Harbor is somehow enough of a crippling blow to scare the US away from trying to blow up everything Japanese they could find) or the US never gets a reason to expand its fight to invading Europe and Africa and helping un-conquer the west.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Well, the Germans got lucky in many ways, but they also were unlucky in others. FDR and Churchills were pretty much aberrations in terms of politicians in the US and the UK. Few other previous US presidents would have had quite the The winter of 1941 was also bad luck. Yeah, it's overplayed how much of an impact that had, but it was *still* the coldest European winter of the 20th century. There's a lot of other little things like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:You'd also need to keep the United States out of the war, which in real life was precipitated by Japan trying to punch us in the nose and not hitting hard enough (and then Germany goes "Welp, may as well" and declares war on the US to give them a reason to invade Europe). So either Japan never attacks the US (or the strike on Pearl Harbor is somehow enough of a crippling blow to scare the US away from trying to blow up everything Japanese they could find) or the US never gets a reason to expand its fight to invading Europe and Africa and helping un-conquer the west. There was a shitload of material being sent to Russia/UK under lend-lease in the months before Pearl Harbor, and it isn't inaccurate to say it was a major factor in keeping Russia in the war. Prior to that there was aid as well but it wasn't nearly on the scale of lend-lease, because it wasn't allowed to be bought in credit. Britain basically ran out of gold and poo poo to sell for gold under cash-carry. Just keeping the US out of the European theater doesn't really make enough of a difference as to change the overall Nazi loss outcome. I mean, it would have made the war longer and a bigger meat grinder but that material support was no joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:The big counterfactuals do come from questions like "what if Britain made peace" or "what if Japan attacked the Soviet Union", but neither of those actors had any intention of doing so. Sober, polite Churchill and all that, although I do understand why you're entertaining the idea. Assuming Britain had bowed out of the war, what additional forces would Germany have had available? Is it more than just the Afrika Korps' single armoured division? Well on the first part all you need is Lord Halifax to become PM instead of Churchill. Which seems more likely than Churchill ever making piece with Hitler at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Isn't the real question how this could possibly have happened though? The Germans taking Moscow means they aren't doing something like encircling Kiev, and then that's drat near a million Soviet troops that are freed up and will certainly threaten the line of supply supporting a drive on Moscow. The Germans couldn't have launched the lunge towards Moscow in Aug/Sep - even if they took Smolensk that much earlier, setting up the rail lines that quickly would have been a physical impossibility. As well, Guderian's swing south to encircle Kiev lead directly into conditions conducive to Typhoon: the Soviet armies across from Army Group Center launched a counter-attack in late Sep that incurred so many casualties as to significantly weaken their defensive lines and enable the initial thrust in October in the first place. The Germans taking Moscow as a hypothetical is something I would still envision as happening in late Nov/Dec 1941, especially if Hitler does not at the 11th hour add a dozen new objectives to Typhoon like Tula and Kalinin, although I do acknowledge that a successful capture of Moscow is very far-fetched any way you slice it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Haha, I was looking for some speeches by Ol' Adolf online, and ended up with Hitler.org. Yeah. But just so you know, they are totally unbiased!  Yes, even his ideological enemies have praised his oratorical skill!* The list for "most memorable speeches of Adolf Hitler" of course ends in May 1941.  *)no list of ideological enemies given To unbiasedly understand the character of Adolf Hitler we have gathered this collection of 'artifacts' for you to educate yourself on. Please note that artifacts such as the ark of covenant or the holy grail are just silly Amerikanischer propafiction!  "Hitler's Autobiography, written in Landsberg prison after the putsch and exceeded in popularity by only the Bible."  "Hitler's Autobiography, written in Landsberg prison after the putsch and exceeded in popularity by only the Bible." "Hitler's Autobiography, written in Landsberg prison after the putsch and exceeded in popularity by only the Bible."   I... I can't... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
if i were a mod we'd have a new title now
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Jesus H Christ  I've got a quickie - can anyone think of a monarch after 1918 who took direct and effective personal command of the country's army? (Albert of Belgium and the Tsar of Russia both did this during WWI.) I'm sure somebody must have done it, but I can't come up with any names.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
The New Eu4 expansion made me think: did forts and castles actually "control" territory other than mountain passes? Whats wrong with just ignoring them and marching wherever you were going in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Jesus H Christ Ibn Saud.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:The New Eu4 expansion made me think: did forts and castles actually "control" territory other than mountain passes? Whats wrong with just ignoring them and marching wherever you were going in the first place? You're exposing your flank if you just dismiss them, and forts (depending on size) could hold many men and supplies to last some time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:The New Eu4 expansion made me think: did forts and castles actually "control" territory other than mountain passes? Whats wrong with just ignoring them and marching wherever you were going in the first place? If you do that you keep the territory for exactly as long as you have men there. For example, early Mongol attacks against Hungary. They went all over the countryside, but they weren't able to keep the Hungarians from preserving the strength to reestablish control over the country when they left.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:The New Eu4 expansion made me think: did forts and castles actually "control" territory other than mountain passes? Whats wrong with just ignoring them and marching wherever you were going in the first place? The dudes in the castle coming out, raiding your supply lines, and going back in. You could just leave a small force to keep an eye on things and continue on your way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:If you do that you keep the territory for exactly as long as you have men there. O no. It's happening again. You've unleashed the Mongol Debate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Well on the first part all you need is Lord Halifax to become PM instead of Churchill. Which seems more likely than Churchill ever making piece with Hitler at least. Trouble with that is, Churchill's reading of Halifax aside, Halifax had no particular interest in becoming PM given that Churchill would have played a key role in cabinet either way. Lord Halifax posted:I had no doubt at all in my own mind that for me to succeed him would create a quite impossible situation. Apart altogether from Churchill's qualities as compared with my own at this particular juncture, what would in fact be my position? Churchill would be running Defence, and in this connexion one could not but remember the relationship between Asquith and Lloyd George had broken down in the first war... I should speedily become a more or less honorary Prime Minister, living in a kind of twilight just outside the things that really mattered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
quote:Whats wrong with just ignoring them and marching wherever you were going in the first place? Well, also whereever you were going in the first place is often enough a fortified town, or maybe you want to capture/kill the particular dude that is holed up in the castle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Haha, I was looking for some speeches by Ol' Adolf online, and ended up with Hitler.org. Yeah. The domain was registered in San Francisco, from what I've learned from this thread, it is very american. I'm sure if we look at the net positives, Hitler had alot of good things going. He built the Autobahn, got us the Volkswagen, made Germany great again until the Poles and English started the war. Kraft durch Freude! On the other hand, he ruined the name of German shower systems and ovens for all time and got us the church tax. Does one outweight the other? I'm not sure. He was surely a great orator. Whenever I'm driving in my car, I'm blasting one of his speeches. We gotta look at this unbiased.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Oh come on, everyone knows Mein Kampf is less popular than Atlas Shrugged
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:The New Eu4 expansion made me think: did forts and castles actually "control" territory other than mountain passes? Whats wrong with just ignoring them and marching wherever you were going in the first place? Not just mountain passes but also vital roads, isthmuses etc. Building roads & other facilities helping movements of armies has always been a strategic concern, close to hostile borders you only want to keep as many roads as you can control during a war - more than your basic civilian infrastructure needs if you plan on invading, less than that if you are preparing to be on the defensive. But then the big guy can afford to build more forts to cover all the roads. Coastal forts also controlled harbours that could be used as landing points by enemy troops and bases for their fleets, or bases for your fleets if you captured them. eg. in the Finnish War of 1808-1809 the Swedish strategy was to initially withdraw as they couldn't reinforce their forces in Finland when the sea was frozen. Sveaborg fortress in Helsinki was then of utmost importance as forces landing there could march to anywhere in southern Finland. But the ice situation in the spring of 1808 was such that the commander of the fortress decided to surrender instead of hanging on, and from then on the outcome was decided. Swedish forces still managed to gain land in a summer offensive but it took them nowhere close to southern Finland, and toward the end of the war cossacks were raiding towns in Sweden Proper. It's an eternity question what would have come if the Sveaborg commander had waited longer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:O no. It's happening again. You've unleashed the Mongol Debate. It's still better than the Whatifhitler Debate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Sov logistics would have taken a big hit if they'd made it to Moscow. I think the Germans would have had bigger advantages if they'd had more reliable allies but the Italians and others were just dead weight as well. Germany did have reliable allies, for the years in which we're talking. The problem is, WW2 was absolutely not the kind of war where small countries could make much of a difference. Hitler absolutely needed Romanian, Hungarian, and Italian infantry to fill out his front, particularly for his Southern Russian adventures, but they weren't adequately equipped for the war. It's like saying France would've held had the Dutch been more reliable allies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Fangz posted:EDIT: I imagine if Frisch and Peierls didn't leave for the UK in 1933, meaning that the Nazis knew in 1939 that the true critical mass for Uranium-235 was only a few kilograms (not an unattainable value of several tons) while the allies did not, things could have proceeded very differently. But on the other hand, Frisch and Peierls probably wouldn't have left Germany if Germany wasn't being run by the freaking Nazis. After all, Frisch and Peierls were Jews. If you had the means, and saw the coming pogroms on the wall, you got the gently caress out. The Nazis couldn't help but alienate many of their best physicists purely for ideological reasons. Others can't have been happy to see their friends and colleagues being persecuted. The remainder, made up of toadies and stooges, may have risen to the top, but they can't have been very good at their jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 23:44
|
|
Panzeh posted:Germany did have reliable allies, for the years in which we're talking. The problem is, WW2 was absolutely not the kind of war where small countries could make much of a difference. Hitler absolutely needed Romanian, Hungarian, and Italian infantry to fill out his front, particularly for his Southern Russian adventures, but they weren't adequately equipped for the war. If Italy had been less incompetent the Germans would have had an easier time. They had to divert important materiel at significant moments to Greece and Africa. And Italy is not small, but it was useless.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Fangz posted:EDIT: I imagine if Frisch and Peierls didn't leave for the UK in 1933, meaning that the Nazis knew in 1939 that the true critical mass for Uranium-235 was only a few kilograms (not an unattainable value of several tons) while the allies did not, things could have proceeded very differently. I'm pretty sure the Manhattan Project used something in the neighborhood of multiple tens of percent of the entire energy production of the Third Reich and nearly 15,000 tons of silver, so with nukes being basically irrelevant to how Germany got drubbed, that wouldn't likely change a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Jesus H Christ Possibly Abdullah of Jordan? e: Nope, he never actually saw combat and the closest he got to doing so appears to be hanging around Essex, in Britain, in the early 80s with the 13/18 Royal Hussars. He's been a tank commander and is trained as a cobra pilot but he's never actually been "in combat." FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Jun 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Apparently the King of Bhutan may have personally led a counter-insurgency campaign in the arse end of 2003, but it's hard to tell from the few news articles whether anyone has actually investigated this or just swallowed the government's press release whole.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Jesus H Christ Haile Selassie?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
The sultan of Oman personally crushed the leftist insurgency that tried to overthrow him in the 1970s, according to what I saw in the museum in Muscat anyway. I don't know enough about it to be sure that's entirely true or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Taiping Tianguo Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Part 9 The Empire Xiang Rong, meanwhile, still isn't having any luck. After three days, he gets his army to stop looting Wuchang and follow the Taiping trail, but without boats he is left helpless when they cross to the other side of the river. Upon arriving in Jiujiang, he finds that the Taiping have destroyed the bridges, and confiscated every boat, horse, wagon or anything else useful to move an army. It will take him over two weeks to get his army over the river and moving again, too late to be any help to Nanjing. The city would need to look to its own defense. Normally home to 30,000 soldiers, the garrison had been stripped to reinforce other provinces, and was caught short by the rapid advance of the Taiping army. Governor-General Lu Jianying is nominally in charge of the defense. In practice, he refuses to leave his house, ashamed and overwhelmed by defeats suffered as the Taiping approached from Jiujiang to Nanjing, and seemingly aware of his own incompetence for the task at hand. Rumors would later circulate that his family had been captured outside the city by the Taiping and used to blackmail him. Whatever the reason for his inactivity, he had already been removed from office, but he would not live to receive the order. Manchu general Fuchuhunga is similarly a weak link. He had set up an entrenched position with cannons outside the city, only to flee at the rebel's approach and allow them to promptly turn the guns around and start bombarding the walls. Meanwhile, other troops start work on 24 encampments to house the huge army soon to arrive by water. The city meanwhile, has received no reinforcements from outside, and must rely on militia, mercenaries, and Manchu bannerman, transferred from the inner, Manchu only, imperial city to defend the outer walls. At the Gates The Taiping plan under general Lin Fengxiang is simple but effective. They have already infiltrated a number of agents inside the city, disguised as Buddhist monks. The Taiping have been destroying temples and monasteries as they travel, smashing idols and graven images, not to mention confiscating the often considerable gold and silver of the monasteries. There are few stories of them actually harming the monks and nuns, as opposed to property damage. This may be simply due to the residents not sticking around to experience Taiping mercy for themselves. In any case, the many fleeing monks provide the ideal cover for Taiping infiltrators, who will start fires to indicate undefended sections of wall to the soldiers outside. Otherwise, the plan is very similar to what they did at Wuchang. The Hunanese miners dig three large tunnels under the north gate. After 13 days of digging, all is set to go. At dawn on March 19th, a mock cavalry attack is mounted on the western wall. Once the defenders are drawn away, the mines are detonated, and the Taiping rush into the breach. The battle begins with disaster. Only two tunnels had actually detonated. The third encountered some kind of hangfire, and goes off just as a thousand soldiers are swarming into the gap, resulting in immense carnage. They nevertheless regroup and push back into the city.  The defenders rally everything they can. Liu Dongying, local magistrate, plugs the gap with his special corps. Initially tasked to raise a mercenary force commanded by scholar volunteers, fresh from passing the examinations, Liu has released prisoners from death row and made them officers as well. They perform much better than the scholars do, and it seems that the first attack will be stopped and the breach reclaimed. But disaster has already struck. Some of the Taiping vanguard have encountered Lu Jianying, and not knowing his identity, killed him. His fleeing bodyguard, shouting that the governor is dead and the city is falling, incite a panic and soon defenders abandon their posts all over the city. The Taiping, likely clued in by the infiltrators, scale undefended walls and open undefended gates. Blood and Fire Once inside the city, the Taiping numbers are irresistible. Officials desert, mercenaries scatter, and the Manchu flee into the inner city. Liu Dongying remains at his post, asking the Taiping to do what they will to him but leave the people alone. Impressed by his gumption, they try to take him alive, but he leaps into the river and drowns himself. The next morning, the Taiping fully occupy the outer city and surround the inner city, where 40,000 Manchu bannermen remain. The Taiping tide is unstoppable, and few of the bannermen have any real martial experience or aptitude. Many will commit suicide and set their homes on fire, some before the Taiping are even over the walls. Those few that try to fight are no match for the overwhelming numbers and ferocity of the Taiping. The Taiping take heavy losses taking the walls, but once they do resistance falls apart. What follows is not a battle but a massacre. Men, women and children are butchered by the soldiers, burned alive in the many fires already raging, or drown fleeing into the river. The dead will be numbered at 30,000 as the propaganda of Manchu elimination is converted into concrete deed. It will remain without competition as the greatest single atrocity committed by the Taiping throughout the war. Sorry for another microupdate. Now that the rebels are in Nanjing, I'll take a look next at Taiping administration and government, then at how things are evolving on the loyalist side, before eventually getting back to the good milhist stuff about how general so-and-so took x number of men to city-you've-never-heard-of.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The sultan of Oman personally crushed the leftist insurgency that tried to overthrow him in the 1970s, according to what I saw in the museum in Muscat anyway. I don't know enough about it to be sure that's entirely true or not. He was considerably less hands-on (militarily) than his dad was, which frankly was probably a better plan anyway. His policy shifts after overthrowing daddy are pretty much directly responsible for the revolt falling apart, though. Qaboos is pretty dreamy for a Middle East autocrat.  Too bad he might be on his way out healthwise.Here's a pretty good writeup on the Dhofar Rebellion: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CSA.htm
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
A monarch is just a dictator with pretensions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
quote:Xiang Rong, meanwhile, still isn't having any luck. After three days, he gets his army to stop looting Wuchang and follow the Taiping trail, but without boats he is left helpless when they cross to the other side of the river. lol are you telling me the loyallists couldn't help but re-loot the already-looted city after it was abandoned by the Taiping?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
My history professor liked to say there's an old adage in China. A bandit and a soldier are two sides of the same coin. in China
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Argas posted:My history professor liked to say there's an old adage in China. A bandit and a soldier are two sides of the same coin. in China That's going to be accurate in more places and times than not from the perspective of civilians, especially without a formal and reliable pay structure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Yeah, in Germany I'm pretty sure that's where bandits come from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
100 Years Ago There's either a new and exciting development in warfare (if you're British) or the deployment of a dirty sneaky rotten stinking trick (if you're German) on the high seas, as a Q-ship and friend manage to lure and sink a German submarine for the first time. The Italians begin the First Battle of the Isonzo, and in Africa, the Legion of Frontiersmen evicts the enemy from Bukoba and settles down to a solid afternoon's combined piss-up/looting session. The spoils of colonial warfare, yo. HEY GAL posted:Yeah, in Germany I'm pretty sure that's where bandits come from. In the Ottoman Empire at the moment they're having a small-but-significant problem with a few soldiers at a time realising that they've just been armed and given plenty of ammunition and then sent on enormous marches through the arse end of nowhere; so why not just slip away at night with a few mates, and go into business for yourself? As long as you can escape from your battalion for 24 hours, they're just going to have to leave you behind. And it's much safer than actually going to the war. And in the last month or so, there's now plenty of soft targets wandering around the place in the form of Armenian deportation caravans who the authorities don't particularly give a toss about their being attacked...
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 11:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
Working towards the furor I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 11:23
|
|
