What has happened this time?

A short description of our timeline

Part 1 - Europe

1939:
Sept.: Germany invades Poland and achieves a resounding success with their Blitzkrieg-tactics. Everything as usual.

1940:
April: Germany invades Norway while preparing its invasion of France
Mai-June: Germany succesfully overrolls France and a collaborational Government is established Italy joins the war and opens an offensive against Egypt.

July: After Karl von Dönitz sucessfully convinced Hitler that an Invasion of England would be desastrous even in case of total air superiority - as the Kriegsmarine could not challenge the Royal Navy in any means - Germany prepared its Invasion of the Soviet Union, while the U-Boat-Warfare in the Atlantik started to intensify with new Bases along the French coast.

August-November: Germany starts Operation Barbarossa (with troops that are in fact equipped for Winter-warfare as there is no realistic chance to reach Moscow before Winter when attacking in August) and crushes the weak Red Army before sweeping the plains of Russia. Furthermore, the Luftwaffe fares much better in destroying the Red Airforce due to higher strength of their own units. After having secured Air-superiority, they were able to divert their capacities into ground-support that significantly sped up the German advance into the Ukraine and Byelorussia.
At the end of November Germany had advanced up to Novgorod, Smolensk, Bryansk, Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk.

December: Several Soviet Counter-attacks fail badly and further deplete the morale of the Soviet troops while Germany completes their resupplying effort in the east.

1941
January-March: British resistance in Northern Africa grows stronger, Italy and supporting german Afrika-Corps are able to advance deep into Egypt before they are pushed back by British forces.

April-November: With the end of the mud-season the German Wehrmacht continues its fierce attacks into Soviet territory and is once again able to crush the defense of the Soviets, piercing deep into the eastern parts of the Ukraine. Still weakened by their winter-offensives the Red Army tries to resist as fiercly as possible but fails against the well-organized and after the winter well-supplied Germans. Until the Summer the Germans are able to disintegrate the Red Army once again and pushes forward to the Don and capturing Tula in in August.
In the North an Operation to push forward to Rzhev is initially repelled by the Soviets until the Southern Campaign relieves the front as Soviet reserves had to be redeployed to the South.
Nevertheless Germany is able to cross the Don. At the same time Hitler appoints Albert Speer as new Minister of Armament who starts an efficient program to boost the output of the German war-machine.
At the suggestion of his General-Staff Hitler decides to go for the oil-fields of Baku before attacking Stalingrad. Along the Volga Wehrmacht-contingents advance to the Caspian Sea to straighten the frontline before swinging to the south. With the major railroads from the North cut of from the South, the defenders are only insufficiently supplied by the sea-transports in the Caspian Sea for the next few weeks and suffer from this circumstance.

December-February ´42: After the sucessfull advance into the Caucasus German forces are again forced to hold, resupplying and preparing for the upcoming spring-offensives. In North Africa, Axis forces suffer a substential defeat in Egypt and are slowly pushed back towards Libya.

1942

March-June: Already in early springtime German offensives in the Caucasus continue. The aim is to acquire control of Baku before the beginning of August. Suffering heavy casualties in the mountain-areas where the enemy stays hidden most of the time, the Germans are able to capture strategic points very quickly, but not to control the entire area. Supply-situation worsenes.

July-August: In Africa, Axis troops are put under pressure at a second Front as the USA (entered the war at historical date) launches its Operation Torch and occupies Marocco.
In the East, despite the bad supply-situation, German troops are able to capture Baku without too much latency, only a week after the schedule. With the Southern area secured German troops are reorganized and sent back to the Northern parts of the Front. Meanwhile Soviet defenders have entrenched in Stalingrad and are eagerly awaiting the German attack. To their surprise, Hitler decides to capture Moscow first and orders an all-out offensive in the North. Within several weeks the Wehrmacht advances to Kalinn and secures the Lake Ladoga which still supplies the sieged city of Leningrad. Facing significant problems during this offensive and shortcuts on military material, Germany proclaims its Total War and focusses all industry on the war-effort.

September-December: The offensive continues into the early winter-months, establishing a frontline 50km in front of Moscow and defends that position against increasing Soviet counter-assaults.
In Africa, Axis troops are pushed back to Tunisia.
Bombing campaigns in Europe begin, but the Allies are suffering heavy casualties thanks to a potent Luftwaffe.

1943

January-April: Allied troops establish control over Tunisia, remaining Axis forces retreat to Italian Homeland. After a harsh winter without any influx of Supplies, Leningrad surrenders and Germany takes the city. The sieging troops are redeployed towards Moscow and Stalingrad where the next major offensives are being planned.
Allied Bombings of Europe continue to increase, as well as their casualties. In northern France, where the aerial defence-plan for this case had led to intelligent preparations, the Allied Airforces are not able to achieve and sustain air-superiority for longer than a few days. The struggle is intense and casualties on both sides are high, yet the allies lose significantly more skilled pilots - crashing in enemy territory - than the germans.

May-August: Moscow is encircled and cut of from support while the Wehrmacht begins its assault into the city. The Soviet leaders flee the city and the fighting drags on for weeks. Finally, but under heavy casualties, Germany is able to secure the biggest parts of the city, reducing the rest to smoldering ruins.
In July the Allies launch their Invasion of Sicily to open a second front, further deepening the trouble for the Axis. Within A few weeks, Sicily is secured and preparations for an Invasion of the italian mainland begin.

September-December: The Soviets launch a major counter-attack to relief the last contingents holding Moscow. The Operation is bloody, but effective in the beginning. German troops retreat into the city-center and the front gets bogged down. Heavy fighting in the city neutralizes the german advantage of speed and maneuverability. German tank-corps are drawn in from the South and a last Blitz-offensive around the city reduces the pressure upon the defenders, though the city remains half in Soviet, half in German hands.
Meanwhile Army-Group South manages to advance into the north, where it is able to pocket some more Soviet troops and force an end to the offensives around Moscow to redeploy troops into the south.
In Italy, Allied troops land in the southern parts of the mainland and slowly force the Axis troops back towards Rome

1944

January-April: Heavy fighting in the area of Monte-Cassino occurs while the Allies keep pushing forward. In the east, the situation becomes more and more desperate for both sides. Soviet morale shrinks with every failed attack to reconquer Moscow, while Germanys reserves on manpower, supplies and material are catastrophically low and further declining.

May: Allied offensives in Italy pay off as German defence weakens. In the East, Blitzkrieg in the plains beyond the Don-river continues but gets more and more countered by efficient mobile defence of the Red Army. The allies make their preparations of opening a third front with their Invasion of Normandy...

June: Operation Overlord begins. During the first hours of the Invasion Germany seems paralyzed but this situation rapidly changes. While the Allies are still occupied with establishing a beachhead for their influx of supplies, the Wehrmacht starts a stunning counter-offensive against the stretched and exhausted allied troops. In contrary to allied estimations, the Luftwaffe shows its capability to sustain air-superiority at the key-points of the operation and ensures victory. By the mid of June the allied invasion-force is forced to surrender. As a result of this dramatic failure public opinion in the UK slowly turns against the continuation of the war.

July-October: The Wehrmacht finally stops the allied advance in Italy and is even able to push the demoralized troops somewhat back. The front in Italy gets bogged down, while the Allies try to get over the shock of their failed Operation Overlord.
In the East Germany manages to take full control over Moscow again and takes a defensive stance again to not further overstretch their lines. The only operations executed are those supposed to stretch the frontline, freeing some troops to be diverted to Italy.

November-December: All fronts were at standstill, while German industrial output reached never-known-heights, thanks to the program of Albert Speer. Another front had become war-deciding: Espionage. With both Germany and the USA engaged in nuclear programs, information became a key to victory or defeat in the nuclear race.

January-June: The first half of the year remained at a mere standstill at all fronts, some back-and-forth in Italy occured, apart from that the constant meatgrinder in the East continued its bloody work.

July: Germany drops a nuclear bomb on Stalingrad and eradicates the city-defence, leading to a mass-panic in the Red Army as well as in the government. The sudden shock results in a phase of political instability when the Officers secretly make contact with Germany to save their own future by replacing Stalin and making peace. In fact, Germany dictates heavy terms on the Soviet Union, but the officers accept. With a swift coup the Soviet Leadership is displaced and the Generals take over.
In UK, Churchill loses the election and is replaced by forces that clamoured for a peace with Germany and predicted a quick defeat in Italy if the Soviet Union crumbles.

August-November: Germany makes peace with the Soviets who are willing to accept the harsh terms, fearing complete destruction in a nuclear holocaust. With the Eastern front appeased Germany throws its troops against Allied defences in Italy and pushes the Allies to the southern edge of Italy. Meanwhile, US-Bomber-contingents with their own nuclear weapons are redeployed to bases in Britain. Germany threatens with retaliation against Britain in case of a nuclear strike on German soil. After long days and nights of negotiations the western allies come to an agreement with Germany to sign a cease-fire and to negotiate peace.
At the beginning of November, Allied troops are withdrawn from Italy and the peace talks begin

1946:

February: After several months a peace is signed between the Western Allies and Germany, Italy, Vichy-France and the remaining german Allies (Sidenote: Japan being defeated within 1945). It was agreed that Germany would release Norway in exchange for the return of occupied african holdings originally belonging to France and Italy

1947-1948:

Egypt is finally granted full souvereignty by the British, Germany, Italy and France conclude the re-organisation of North-African Holdings that forces Vichy into ceding Tunisia to Italy and the establishment of German bases in Marocco.

The German invasion of Russia wasn't feasible until 1941 because thats the time by which you could feasibly move troops. Attacking in August and November is a terrible idea as it leaves a month for campaigning before the Winter sets in, which would avoid the massive disasterous encirclements for the Red Army.

Better to have the invasion in May of 1941 and have the troops fully equipped for Winter, and to have Germany began a war economy in 1940-41, not 44.

Black Guardian wrote:August-November: Germany starts Operation Barbarossa (with troops that are in fact equipped for Winter-warfare as there is no realistic chance to reach Moscow before Winter when attacking in August) and crushes the weak Red Army before sweeping the plains of Russia. Furthermore, the Luftwaffe fares much better in destroying the Red Airforce due to higher strength of their own units. After having secured Air-superiority, they were able to divert their capacities into ground-support that significantly sped up the German advance into the Ukraine and Byelorussia.

You forget that most units will still be disorganized from the fast deployment east and will be short of supplies. Not to mention the parts worn out by the quick redeployment. Or the shortage of ammunition.
But all that pales compared to the weather. You'll only have a few weeks before the rain and mud shuts down all offensive operations, which gives the Soviets a far better chance to recover than they had historically (where Germany had several months before the forced pause in operations). So Soviet losses will be far less severe, and they'll be able to resist more effectively come 41.
In addition they can safe far more industry, so their weapon output will be higher in the years to come.
Since the Red Air Force didn't play any effective role in 41, any 'quicker' destruction will not add anything to the advance.
As for the winter clothing... Germany had them, and had them prepared and ready to ship to the troops... they just didn't have the logistic capabilities to get winter clothing, food, and ammunition to the front. Since the front is now far closer to Germany, that won't be a problem.

Black Guardian wrote:At the end of November Germany had advanced up to Novgorod, Smolensk, Bryansk, Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk.

Too far east by far. Germany will be lucky to be out of eastern Poland before the weather deteriorates enough to prevent further offensive operations.
You'll also have to take into account that Romania didn't join the Axis until Nov. 40, so there is no southern front at the beginning. Even if Romania joins at once, getting the logistics in place will prevent any operations before the ground freezes over.

Black Guardian wrote:April-November:

Again, you ignore the realities of weather. There could be no offensive in April, there was just mud. There's no chance of any mechanized offense before late May or early June. Historically Barbarossa started as soon as the weather allowed it, with perhaps a few days delay. And the campaign season will end far before November, when the rains again make operations (and supply) impossible.

Black Guardian wrote:Nevertheless Germany is able to cross the Don. At the same time Hitler appoints Albert Speer as new Minister of Armament who starts an efficient program to boost the output of the German war-machine.

Speer is no wonder maker. He just got lucky to be appointed right before years of building effort resulted in a large increase of arms production.
It is unlikely that he (or anyone else) could significantly increase German arms production beyond historical levels. Any increase in production requires more raw materials and factories; tools for the factories and trained workers (especially given German industrial practices that existed before the war and still do nowadays).
Another thing to consider is that the wonder of German production was in the production of obsolete equipment. This was especially obvious in submarine production and fighter air crafts - the versions rolling off the assembly line in large numbers in 44 should have been withdrawn from the front lines in 42 or at least 43.

Black Guardian wrote:With the Southern area secured German troops are reorganized and sent back to the Northern parts of the Front. Meanwhile Soviet defenders have entrenched in Stalingrad and are eagerly awaiting the German attack. To their surprise, Hitler decides to capture Moscow first and orders an all-out offensive in the North.

You're apparently relying on very inaccurate information. The Soviets by this time had very good intelligence on German movements and intentions. It's unrealistic to expect this kind of strategic surprise.

Black Guardian wrote:Bombing campaigns in Europe begin, but the Allies are suffering heavy casualties thanks to a potent Luftwaffe.

There's been no change in the time line that makes the Luftwaffe significantly more potent. While those historically lost in the BOB were saved, a number of them will have died in accidents since then, so the absolute increase in numbers is not that large. Given German training methods, there's little to no overall improvement of Luftwaffe as a result.


As for the general situation, you have vastly weakened the Soviets for no apparent cause. You seem to imply that the Soviets were lucky historically to stop Germany; that wasn't the case. Germany was very lucky to be as successful as they were. They certainly had no right to expect such a crushing success. Since the new plan is worse in all regards, they should not do better.

Black Guardian wrote:June: Operation Overlord begins. During the first hours of the Invasion Germany seems paralyzed but this situation rapidly changes. While the Allies are still occupied with establishing a beachhead for their influx of supplies, the Wehrmacht starts a stunning counter-offensive against the stretched and exhausted allied troops. In contrary to allied estimations, the Luftwaffe shows its capability to sustain air-superiority at the key-points of the operation and ensures victory. By the mid of June the allied invasion-force is forced to surrender. As a result of this dramatic failure public opinion in the UK slowly turns against the continuation of the war.

Very unrealistic in all regards. Luftwaffe by this point is an exhausted force. The war in the East has consumed more pilots/planes (since it's already 10 months longer), and the few pilots that were not lost in the BOB are by now an irrelevantly low number. Against the vast number of allied planes they would be swept away with hardly any notice.
It's a popular assumption that if the Germans had gathered all their forces in France and thrown them against the landings they'd have won; the reality is slightly different. Moving all those troops into position with the destroyed infrastructure would take weeks, and the forces would suffer high losses of equipment.
More, given the Resistance, the Allies would be well informed of German troop movements.
And that forgets the realities on the ground... if Germany withdraws too many troops from occupation duty, the Resistance and the SAS can take ports and allow the allies to open another front in France, or two or three. Without the need of a forced landing and with intact port facilities, it's rather easy to organize.

Black Guardian wrote:Another front had become war-deciding: Espionage. With both Germany and the USA engaged in nuclear programs, information became a key to victory or defeat in the nuclear race.

The problem is that Germany never had a nuclear program. Nor did she have the resources to mount one. The scientists were there (even though their proposed reactor to produce nuclear material would have blown up), but the engineering support was not. Producing a nuke takes years of effort by thousands of people, even if you steal all the science data needed.


Overall the time line becomes less and less believable in the later years. You have not provided any reason why the 42 winter offense by the Soviets would fail, let alone how the Germans could maintain offensive posture beyond that.
The nuke that's build without any apparent effort makes the whole thing even less realistic. Especially since at the same time Germany appears to produce more of everything else.
Industrial capacity doesn't appear from nowhere.
Neither do the raw materials.

Germany attacked the USSR at the best point in time, that's something pretty much all historians agree on. By attacking early, as you proposed, they will have less mobile troops, and only a very short campaign time before the rain and mud allows the Soviets months to reorganize and recover from the surprise. History shows that those few months were all they needed. Even though the Germans achieved strategic surprise again in 42, the fighting was a lot more equal, and the advance was only possible because the Soviets reserve was out of position (which never happened again afterward). The Soviet counterstrike at Stalingrad showed that they'd mastered armored warfare, and were equal to the Germans. Their better supply situation (even as Germany fell back and they advanced) allowed them to defeat Germany again and again.
Since more Soviets survive the first few months of war, since more industry survives intact in Soviet hands, the extreme German advances in the next campaigning season make very little sense. The idea that they could defeat/push back the Soviets as cheaply as they did with strategic surprise, paralyzed Soviet command, and totally outclassed enemy is simply hilarious. I'm not saying that the German advance in 41 wouldn't succeed; it would. But the cost would be far higher to Germany, and there'd be far less Soviet troops encircled or otherwise lost.

Another thing you ignored was the ability of the Soviets to rebuild their air force after it had been destroyed. You seem to assume that it somehow disappeared, instead of recover as history shows us it would.

So, as alternate histories go, this time line is not very realistic.

Wow, Drake. Wow.

Well, you know what that means. Drake should be redeveloping this timeline, no?

Roeben wrote:Wow, Drake. Wow.

Well, you know what that means. Drake should be redeveloping this timeline, no?

Agreed. Maybe he would realize that alternate-history of that extent which is needed to create a Fatherland-world is not possible when considering ALL historical realities. Otherwise there cannot be ahistorical outcome because everything would go straight as it did in our time line.

By the way, do not believe I would suspect that this time line is very *realistic*, but I think it is at least somewhat plausible in its effects to create a scenario that fulfills the basic needs to be playable and balanced.

We could think up a little excuse, how does ''The treaty of Versailles was humiliating, but still allowed for more economic expansion'' sound. Of course, this is a stupid example. Anything could be used, but it would have to be a excuse that enables whatever happens after 1939.

Black Guardian wrote:

Roeben wrote:Wow, Drake. Wow.

Well, you know what that means. Drake should be redeveloping this timeline, no?

Agreed. Maybe he would realize that alternate-history of that extent which is needed to create a Fatherland-world is not possible when considering ALL historical realities. Otherwise there cannot be ahistorical outcome because everything would go straight as it did in our time line.

By the way, do not believe I would suspect that this time line is very *realistic*, but I think it is at least somewhat plausible in its effects to create a scenario that fulfills the basic needs to be playable and balanced.

The thing is that we can't be too unrealistic.

Well we could have a Barbarossa in May and a successfull Fall Blau that pushes the Soviets to the Urals. Though the war with the US has to be ended before they launch D-Day, otherwise we'll need a new timeline that either defeats the Normandy invasion, or it stalls at the German border. Perhaps we can have the Soviets sign a peace treaty by 1944, which would allow the Germans to focus completely on the Allied Invasion.

Well, I don't know what kind of balance you want, but consider that the USSR withstood an attack by Germany, after Germany had united most of Europe under its control. It would probably have taken the combined resources of Germany/Axis and GB/France/Commonwealth to get a clear victory over the Soviets.

Possible time line:
After Munich, Hitler is convinced that the Allies will not fold any more. So instead of supporting Tito, he starts a course of reconciliation with Czechoslovakia, going so far as to say that bad intelligence lead to many exaggerations of the treatment of foreigners.
The government is hesitant to believe it, but is slowly brought around.
In 39 German agents provoke violence in the former Czechoslovak areas now under Polish control, and Poland uses the army to keep peace - German agents escalate, and the press plays it up as the worst massacres in recent history.
With German encouragement and full support Czechoslovakia declares war to protect their former citizens; Germany assists them, and occupies most of Poland. Stalin is alarmed, but unwilling to stand against Germany alone. Without violating the Munich agreement, and thanks to the reconciliation efforts, neither do the Allies. To make the pill easier to swallow for Stalin, Hitler offers him free hand in the East (like historical agreement, less Eastern Poland).
In fact, thanks to the Winter War, the Allies turn their ire upon the Soviets, and send aid to Finland. British and French aid persuades Sweden and Norway to send more direct aid as well. Though most of the Allies effort is through air units, increasing numbers of troops are deployed.

In May 40 the war still goes on, and Hitler decides to go East. In a meeting with the leaders of the Allies, he agrees on all told rather limited border changes (still enough Lebensraum for a long time to come after the inhabitants are gassed).
The initial attack is not just weaker (less armored units, higher percentage of Pz 1 & 2) but also against better defensive positions and overall somewhat better organized units. The results are far less spectacular than in history, but the Soviets are pressed back. The Allies send limited amount of troops and aircraft to support the German advance. Still, the German advance stalls further West than historically.
The Winter causes as many problems, but with imports from the Allies and the US the supply situation is vastly improved. Still the German economy wasn't prepared for such a huge campaign and even with imports equipment shortages grow.
The Soviet winter offensives are surprisingly successful, and both Allies and Germany are forces to give ground.

The shock of the winter setbacks encourages far more cooperation, and more Allied troops support German forces.

But before they can launch their offensive, Stalin makes a deal with Japan and Japan starts her offensive in the Pacific.

The Pacific war follows about historical time lines. Japan is stronger thanks to some Soviet assistance (tech & intelligence mostly, some oil) and because there's no need to guard the Soviet borders. Even with all the US attention, since even a destroyer takes more than a year to build, it takes a long time to bring more force to bear.

Meanwhile the Eastern Front is a back and forth as Germany and the Allies try to overwhelm the massive production capacities of the USSR.

The US keeps out of the war against the Soviets and sends no aid to any of the combatants, so they are evenly matched. Soviets and Germany are supreme in ground warfare, with the Soviets having a massive numeric advantage. The Allies have a superior air force and navy, but can't field a first class army; they make up the numbers, giving them actually a numeric edge over the Soviets, but their combat performance is too far behind to give them a decisive advantage.



This TL may overstate Soviet power a bit, but I think it's justified because of the following factors:
1. Germany controls far less of Europe. Since there was no long planning to have forces work together (like NATO), there are a lot of inefficiencies and problems weakening the allied effort.
2. Germany was no at war after Sept 39 until May 40; since Hitler planned to not go to war until later (and then took the justification of the Winter War to press ahead early) German mobilization is a bit behind OTL. (Historically Hitler talked about war in the late 40s, without allied intervention in Poland, he'll likely go back to that plan)
3. Czech tanks and tank plans were important (tank production 39-41 Pz 38(t)/total PzIII, IV, 38(t):153/355, 367/1689, 678/3358); without them there's far less armor to go around.
4. The Germans are very surprised at the large number of heavy tanks and don't have an answer to them for a long time (historically a year, but that was a year later, so it'll probably take longer).
5. The Soviets on the other hand started more preparations after the German attack on Poland. Without a war in the West and with Hitler's rhetoric it was just a question of time. And Stalin is nothing if not paranoid/cautious.
6. The initial attack takes far less territory and therefore industry and population. Much of which will be used or evacuated. So the Soviets are stronger than historically.
7. Britain and France are reluctant to fully mobilize and only do so after the Soviets survived 40 more or less intact and ready to fight. Without the added defiance after the end of Czechoslovakia and even active reconciliation, their forces are less ready and have to play a lot of catch up.
8. With more reliance on trade Germany must pay far more attention to a stable currency and even export goods. Not much, but some.
9. The Soviets were a super power and had a huge population; more than any other single combatant - about as much as Germany, France, and Britain (without colonies) together.

Why does the US stay neutral? Because FDR was anti-Hitler and thought rather well of the Soviets. And the Jewish vote was of some importance. The US won't side against Britain, though. So not only will they sit out that part of the war, but they'll be far less ready for war, since there's no interest to get the US ready for war in Europe.
What about Italy? It's unlikely Italy would create a distraction, but possible. However, Italy would either fight Greece only, or quickly fold, as they can't face Britain and France without German support. So they'd likely sit this war out, like Spain did. Probably some volunteer forces, but probably no DOW.
Japan? They already went into China, so the US will eventually embargo oil. Britain will want to try and draw in the US, so they'll support it. Japan went to war because of the oil; Soviet assistance is just a bonus.

Nukes:
The US will probably have a nuclear program, but without British assistance, it'll take longer. It will probably be lower priority as well, so nukes would be late for the war (result: large scale invasion of Japan or China necessary to end the war).
Germany/Britain: Both will have a low priority program. Germany will conclude it's impossible (as historical) and Britain that they don't have the resources to fight and build a bomb; and they don't trust anyone enough to work with them.
USSR: Spies will deliver most of the science from the US, but the industry is not available to build nukes.

How does the war in the East go? That's open to what is desired. The match is equal enough that either side may gain victory, or just a bloody stalemate (with Kursk like offensives for all sides starting in 42 or even 41).

Is it likely?
The Allies supported Poland only after Germany betrayed the Munich agreement. Without that, they'll not go to war over Poland.
The Allies considered and created lots of plans to send troops to Finland to fight the Soviets - when they were at war with Germany! So without war, that is far more likely.
Would Stalin still go after Finland? I think so. He didn't expect much resistance and intended to be finished in weeks, much like the German attack on Poland. But once he started, he couldn't back down.
Can the Soviets really resist without LL? That's the real question. With a lot slower first advance and less lopsided casualties during the first campaign season, it is possible.


Possible variations:
Allied/German cooperation strains Anglo-American relations to the breaking point and the US becomes anti-British. Britain gives Japan free hand against the Netherlands (who support the US embargo), and the US aligns closer with the Soviets during the war - US, USSR, China vs. the rest of the world.
I can't say how the Commonwealth (especially Canada and Australia) would act in this scenario.

Still too impossible, the British and French would not support an even stronger Germany; and they surely won't go to war with the Germans against the Soviets.

I just think we should do realistic tweaking to the first timeline posted.

Actually, barring the part in which Germany goes to war WITH the allies, its sorta-good. if only the cause could be more realistic, the result would be pretty good. (also, prospects for a dutch/german naval slugout against britain seems pretty damn awesome to me!)

Perhaps its necissary to go back earlier in time, perhaps have Hitler come to power years earlier, or have WWI end in a stalemate, or even better, STILL a stalemate... I'm not a history expert, but how about conjuring up an explanation which results in WWI never (officially) ending, even though no hostilities have taken place after 1926 (or a similar date) We could do away with hitler entirely, or make him a possible Armaments minister.

When the game starts in 1948, the first world war starts up all over again, but with Germany finding itself in a precarious situation, asking aid from Romanov Russia.

von_Oppeln wrote:Still too impossible, the British and French would not support an even stronger Germany; and they surely won't go to war with the Germans against the Soviets.

I just think we should do realistic tweaking to the first timeline posted.

They may not support a stronger Germany, but what realistic option do they have? They went to war with the Soviets over Finland (while Germany was at peace), which almost happened in reality (and they were at war with Germany then!).

Now they've fought ~6 months and are in a stalemate - and Germany tells them they will go to war against the Soviets. They can hardly publicly complain about Germany declaring war against their enemy, let alone do anything to stop it. They don't like it, but they try to make the best of a bad situation.

And once the Soviets stop the Allies and they realize just how powerful the Soviets are/were, the Allies are far less hesitant to support Germany fully - a powerful Germany may be bad, but a super-powered USSR is worse.

Roeben wrote:Actually, barring the part in which Germany goes to war WITH the allies, its sorta-good. if only the cause could be more realistic, the result would be pretty good.

The problem here is that Germany alone is not strong enough to defeat the Soviets or reach a stalemate without something very unrealistic happening. For them to have any chance, they need free access to the world market (especially trucks and train from the US). To have that, war with the Allies has to be avoided. But without the plundered resources of Europe, Germany even with access to the world market is not powerful enough alone.
The cause for the Allies/Soviet war is realistic, though not well known; the Allies nearly went to war with the Soviets in history over Finland; without war with the Axis, this becomes far more likely.
For all the importance that people nowadays think the ideology made back then, and it was no doubt important, it did not get in the way of practical arrangements. The German-Soviet ideological clash did not prevent the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, or the negotiations for the Soviets to become an Axis power (yes, that really did happen; the negotiations didn't succeed, but Stalin apparently was willing). Just like the Allies worked together with the Soviets, they could work together with the Axis. Hitler would welcome that, in fact, as he never wanted to fight Britain. He wouldn't mind beating France, but the Soviets always were the primary target.

If Germany is forced in a two front war, they can not hope to win in the East. They thought they could because they had very incomplete and often false information; much of the propaganda by German generals how they could have won if not for Hitler (or if this or that had been done) is simply that - propaganda. Since the Iron curtain fell, we've learned a lot about what really happened on the Eastern Front, and lots of supposed facts had to be corrected.

So if Germany is supposed to have a chance, they need access to the world market and access to European resources - the only way to get that is getting them to be co-belligerents with the Allies.

Roeben wrote:(also, prospects for a dutch/german naval slugout against britain seems pretty damn awesome to me!)

?
Where'd the Dutch get a navy that'd be powerful enough to make an impact? For that matter, how could Germany build a navy that could stand up to the RN? Given the very limited shipyard capacity, it would take decades! And Britain is not going to accept that without reacting.

Roeben wrote:Perhaps its necissary to go back earlier in time, perhaps have Hitler come to power years earlier, or have WWI end in a stalemate, or even better, STILL a stalemate... I'm not a history expert, but how about conjuring up an explanation which results in WWI never (officially) ending, even though no hostilities have taken place after 1926 (or a similar date) We could do away with hitler entirely, or make him a possible Armaments minister.

When the game starts in 1948, the first world war starts up all over again, but with Germany finding itself in a precarious situation, asking aid from Romanov Russia.

Impossible. The people are not going to stand for it. People now and then don't like war, and no government can ignore the people like that. No government has an interest in keeping things that uncertain. Nobody profits in a long war.

Anyway, I can come up with another time line, if I know what parts of the end situation were not working.

Drake wrote:

Roeben wrote:(also, prospects for a dutch/german naval slugout against britain seems pretty damn awesome to me!)

?
Where'd the Dutch get a navy that'd be powerful enough to make an impact? For that matter, how could Germany build a navy that could stand up to the RN? Given the very limited shipyard capacity, it would take decades! And Britain is not going to accept that without reacting.

Ouch, yeah, i apologize for my inaccuracy. I was actually referring to the fact that German submarines were of Dutch design. Especially the part where dutch submarine designs would be traded to Germany, and the Dutch supporting the German Submarine doctrine. I mean, losing the east indies is a big thing for the Netherlands, without it, they can hardly keep up their industry.


Also, considering the ''Long Great war.'' Can't we do away public opinion by making ALL combatants, without perhaps the USA, nationalistic in some way?

EDIT: Another idea, a different treaty of Versailles? One that somehow creates the same nationalism, but somehow leaves Germany in a better economical/industrial situation?

Roeben wrote:Ouch, yeah, i apologize for my inaccuracy. I was actually referring to the fact that German submarines were of Dutch design. Especially the part where dutch submarine designs would be traded to Germany, and the Dutch supporting the German Submarine doctrine. I mean, losing the east indies is a big thing for the Netherlands, without it, they can hardly keep up their industry.

Much is made of the Snorkels, much more than they probably were worth. Even the late war models were vulnerable to waves - any block of air flow, no matter how short, was very uncomfortable to the crew. So using them makes no sense, unless it's absolutely needed. For another, subs were far slower under water than surfaced, so using the snorkel reduces operational range. Yes, they normally traveled on the surface; spending most of the time submerged is something that only started after the war and the modern image is more of nuclear subs who stay submerged unless they need to do something on/near the surface. The WWII realities were very different.
Later in the war, a snorkel could be detected by radar, but Germany lacked appropriate radar detection devices, meaning that aircraft could bomb a snorkling sub without warning while making it only slightly less detectable.

As for the Dutch, they can trade for their raw materials, like they (and every other country) does today. International trade is not a new development, it's as old as civilization.

Roeben wrote:Also, considering the ''Long Great war.'' Can't we do away public opinion by making ALL combatants, without perhaps the USA, nationalistic in some way?

Possible, yes, but it would remove Germany's massive advantage.
Defense spending (% of GDP)
Germany/UK
34: 6.3% ~1.5%
35: 8.7% ~1.8%
36: 13.7% ~2.5%
37: 14.7% ~3.8%
38: 18.9% 7.4%
39: 23% 15.3%
40: 40% 43.8%

French numbers are comparable. If there were high tensions over a longer term, the Allies would have defense spending comparable to Germany's, rather than a quarter between 34 and 38. That would significantly change the balance of power; the Fall of France and even the conquest of Poland are unlikely as Germany would need far more forces in the West. Nor would a Munich treaty dismantling Czechoslovakia be likely in those conditions.
Germany did so well because they started mobilizing so much earlier than their enemies. If you take away this advantage, very little remains in Germany's favor. Without Atlantic bases even subs will be harmless (perhaps 1/3 as dangerous as historically, probably less).

Roeben wrote:EDIT: Another idea, a different treaty of Versailles? One that somehow creates the same nationalism, but somehow leaves Germany in a better economical/industrial situation?

Possible, but not strong enough to defend in the West and defeat the Soviets. I guess it would be possible to weaken the Soviets enough that Germany can create a stalemate or for the state to collapse, but I don't know enough about Soviet politics to know where to begin; or how it would affect German-Soviet cooperation during the years before WWII, which was critical for German rearmament.

You could also factor in some lucky breaks, such as capturing an important General by chance, for i know that the Soviet war machine was very centralized. Coming up with a series of events that results in a capture or lucky sniper kill, coupled with a different Versailles, could end up with a German stalemate against the SU. perhaps leaving the SU dishonored. Possibly in a state of serious discontent, perhaps leading to a civil war. Finland made a German territory. With the eastern front more or less secured, troops would be sent to the western front, unable to stop the allies, but able to halt the tide, maybe even push back a little.

I think that with just the perfect bit of change, we can create a realistic German victory, but we'll have to come up with more idea's for it. I suggest pitching in as much idea's as possible.

Science Fact:

We want to achieve a situation that is historically implausible and probably not achievable without major changes in historyline.

We are aiming towards the creation of a post-nuclear world with (at least) 2 Superpowers in (most importantly) 2 Blocks - possibly even 3 with a stronger SU and Communist China - namely Germany and the Fascist block of continental Europe and USA and a Union of Democraticies, especially Britain & former Colonies and Japan.

SU therefore must be defeated at least to an extend were it is no longer a major global player in the gamble of the superpowers and not an imminent threat for Germany at the beginning of the scenario (maybe with the possibility to become one once again within the timespan of the mod, which will of course be difficult).

Please be reminded that those 2 blocks are hostile to each other which has to have plausible reasons in the timeline!
And please be also reminded that these aims DO require a succesful nuclear program for Germany!

Can you give us an exact date of divergence? Or is it up to us to find out?

Roeben wrote:Can you give us an exact date of divergence? Or is it up to us to find out?

He who wants to change the timeline is free to do so as long as the basic premises I told you are applicable to the resulting situation in 1948.

Well, thing is, the further back the point of divergence, the bigger the possible changes.

Black Guardian wrote:Science Fact:

We want to achieve a situation that is historically implausible and probably not achievable without major changes in historyline.

We are aiming towards the creation of a post-nuclear world with (at least) 2 Superpowers in (most importantly) 2 Blocks - possibly even 3 with a stronger SU and Communist China - namely Germany and the Fascist block of continental Europe and USA and a Union of Democraticies, especially Britain & former Colonies and Japan.

SU therefore must be defeated at least to an extend were it is no longer a major global player in the gamble of the superpowers and not an imminent threat for Germany at the beginning of the scenario (maybe with the possibility to become one once again within the timespan of the mod, which will of course be difficult).

Please be reminded that those 2 blocks are hostile to each other which has to have plausible reasons in the timeline!
And please be also reminded that these aims DO require a succesful nuclear program for Germany!

Okay, I think we actually can get a somewhat believable time line, if we remove the nuclear weapons (from all sides). Both blocks (and the Soviets) would have the know how to build nukes, but not the industrial infrastructure. So a race for nukes would happen during the scenario.

I'll revisit my old idea:
Hitler honors Munich agreements and next moves against Poland. Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Hungary become Axis.
Winter War - Allies intervene on behave of Finland; begin of WWII.
Hitler takes advantage of the international situation and starts Barbarossa in 1940.
With Soviet encouragement and minor aid, Japan starts the Pacific War mid-41, catching especially the US off-guard.
42 - after the Soviets withstood the German assault for two years, France sends large formations East.
43 - attack on the minor Axis allies on the front line, causes the front to collapse and move West for most of the year.
44 - With massive French aid and RAF support, German units breech the Soviet front and press East. US troops land in China.
45 - US/Chinese forces link up and advance constantly. Invasion of Taiwan. German advance stopped near Moscow, Stalingrad attacked by French forces.
46 - Japanese puppets in China collapse, US/Sino troops enter Korea. Starvation in Japan becomes problematic, raw materials scarce. Massive casualties in Stalingrad destabilize the French government. Fascistic elements overthrow the government with German support. UK/Commonwealth withdraws all troops/support from both France and Germany. Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark units in the Scandinavian League for mutual defense; they essentially become part of the Allies. Allied-Soviet peace negotiations succeed. The Eastern Front is stable as the events in France and the British withdrawal disrupt Axis plans.
47 - Japan surrenders. US and mercenary Japanese troops assist in containing the Communist problem in China. 'Marshall Plan' for Japan, Korea, and China. Alarmed by the events in France, the Allies, US, and China form the Democratic League and begin plans for long term cooperation (military, economic) and to prevent violent changes of government.
Vietnamese uprisings against French rule as the new government in Paris tries to drain more resources from the colonies to support the war efforts.
Italy joins the Axis and attacks Greece, escalating tensions between the DL and Axis. Turkey seeks DL protection.
Axis troops encircle Moscow and destroy the Soviet forces encircled; relieve efforts fail. Stalin stays in Moscow and falls, but beforehand signs agreements with the DL ceding the provinces Murmansk, Leningrad (partially occupied by Germany), Karelina, and Arkhangelsk in the North, the whole Caucasus region in the South for 49 years (only to be returned to a free USSR) to keep the Axis out of those regions and hopefully escalate tensions between the DL and Axis. Surviving Soviet forces (still millions strong) prepare defensive lines further East, even as Hitler declares Victory when Moscow falls.

Part 2:
(message was too long for one post)


The Soviets are still an important power, but alone no threat to Germany. The Army is large and probably the best in the world (not as good as the German elite units, but better than the German army as a whole), decent air force (tactical only), and no navy to speak of. Industrial speaking, the USSR is #3, but far behind the top two.

Germany is exhausted, overstretched, but has most of Europe under control (directly or indirectly). As historic, the army is split in two parts: a small, very modern/mobile, very competent force, and a large infantry army, professional, but without motor vehicles; Luftwaffe is large and modern, but tactical only; the navy small, submarine heavy, and not too advanced, but currently expanding as tensions with the DL result in far more naval spending. Germany is the #2 industrial power.

Britain: #4 industry. Britain is quite well informed about German tactics, strategy, and capabilities. The army is large, motorized, but not combat tested. The RAF is large and perhaps the best balanced air force, the Navy is large, but was underfunded in the early war years and very few ship are up to date.

US: #1 industry, but partially demobilized, as she's now at peace. A lot of industrial effort is devoted to assisting China, Korea, and Japan. The army is large, modern, and combat tested, but doctrines are less advanced that that of the UK, France, Germany, or USSR. The air force is huge, very powerful strategically, but weak tactically. The Navy is humongous and the technological leader.

France: France is the second most important Axis power, after Germany, both economically and militarily. The economy is the fifth strongest, the army is large, well equipped (even though France struggles to produce enough motor vehicles to keep the forces motorized without foreign imports), and thanks to years of close cooperation with Germany, very experienced. There are probably no other national forces that work as well together as French and German forces. The air force is large and modern, but tactical only. The navy has been underfunded for many years, but is the largest Axis navy; few units are up to date, and there's still little new construction.

Italy: As historically, decent sized force, especially naval, but technologically no match for any other major power. Still, the Navy is larger than Germany's and some elite units are well trained and have high moral.

Japan: Occupied, but not demilitarized. The bombing has done immense damage, and destroyed most industry, but leaving many of the trained workforce alive. The Japanese army is 'assisting' the Chinese government against the Communist rebels as war reparation to China. While a lot of equipment is US supplied, domestic industry is rebuilding. Still it's the weakest economy at the moment (probably behind some minors in industrial war production). The army is demoralized, but slowly rebuilding and regaining its honor in China; the navy is sunk, and it will take years to project any power.

China: China has the largest, but also least advanced army, lacking even the artillery other nations (even Italy) considers standard. US equipment is slowly entering service, starting to improve the situation, but it will take many years before even the infantry divisions reach the norm for industrialized nations. Air force and navy are worse. Still, China has enormous potential and long term will become a major power.


Tanks forces in comparison:
Germany: Heavy tanks, and many of them. Germany is most responsible for the increase in tank weight. The forces are centered around King Tiger/Panther forces, with the Pz. IV leaving service. Pz. VIII Maus is entering service in heavy tank battalions, but it remains to be seen what use a 200 ton tank will be. The E-Series is entering prototype stage, and is expected to raise production rates; it does however not represent a significant improvement in combat power over current German designs and will likely leave German tanks at a disadvantage compared to equal weight UK and Soviet tanks.
USSR: The T-54 is entering service in large numbers, and emphasizes mobility over size. Although weighting in at under 40 tons, it has thicker front armor (hull and turret) than the Tiger II and a 100 mm gun. Even with the industrial losses, the USSR remains the #1 tank producer; the lighter tanks only increase the lead over Germany.
US: #2 tank producer, but lacking heavy tanks and lacking behind other powers. The M4 Sherman proved more than adequate against Japan, and heavier tanks would have been of no use in that theater. A new modern medium tank (~30 tons) to replace the M4 is now entering service, as is the heavier (45 ton) M26 Pershing. It still leaves the US with the by far lightest tank force. Of course this results in comparatively high mobility, makes it easier to ship them (therefore more can be transported to any given point in the same time), and far easier to land without port facilities.
Britain: #5 tank producer. British tanks were inferior to foreign designs for a long time, but are finally catching up with German designs. The German step to mass production in the E-series actually gives the British tanks individual superiority. Still, British tank production is nowhere near German production.
France: France started with a decent tank design and kept up with the development, but like the Soviets chose mobility over size (though the decision was made because France could not produce enough heavy tanks to equip the army).
Italy/Japan/China: No noteworthy tank forces.

Missiles:
Cruise missiles: All major powers (Germany, USSR, France, UK, US) have cruise missiles, though inaccuracy still prevents large scale tactical uses. The US has the most accurate missiles and used them with some success against Japan.
Ballistic Missiles: The big three have the tech, though only Germany has produced a significant number. The USSR lacks the spare resources, and bombers are still more cost effective, so the US sees no need to deploy them.

Electronics: The DL have a clear lead over Germany in radar tech and other mass produced items, though Germany has some very advanced equipment in very low numbers. Germany has no capability to scale up production. Only the US currently knows about transistors.

Jet aircraft: Without pressing need, no jet aircraft or rocket aircraft are in active duty. France, Germany, US, UK all have designs and test units, but accident rates were too high to justify introduction until now. The overall capabilities are comparable, though German production is at risk, should access to foreign resources be cut of for a prolonged time.
All four powers also have basic helicopters. If they can find ways to employ them usefully in war remains to be seen.

Force distribution:
US: All forces are either at home or in the Pacific.
USSR: All forces are concentrated near the Urals, well east of German positions. The USSR is by no means defeated, but they are not large enough to defeat the Axis forces deployed against them.
Germany: Most German forces are deployed either at the Eastern Front, or are on occupation duty. As the holocaust claims more and more of the occupied population, the size of occupation forces needed is constantly shrinking. Resettling is happening slowly, as war requires most workers to stay where the factories are.
UK: The largest percentage of troops is deployed in the PTO, but the troops are moved as quickly as feasible near French and Italian colonies and secure the home island from invasion.
France: Most forces are still deployed East, but as diplomatic tensions increase, the colonies are reinforces. An expedition to suppress the uprising in Vietnam is shipping out.
Italy: Forces are currently arrayed against Greece and dispersed through the colonies on occupation duty. Mussolini is dreaming about adding Egypt and Turkey to Italy and restoring the Roman Empire.
Japan: Forces are at home or fighting under Chinese command on the mainland.
China: Forces deployed to provide internal security and defeat the Communists.

Strategic situation:
Axis troops threaten the provinces the DL recently acquired from the Soviets. It's impossible for them to deploy sufficient force to stop Germany anytime soon. Finland is at risk as well, though the mountains between the Caucasus and Turkey/Iran provide a sufficient barrier to stop further German advance. European Turkey is indefensible as well, but defenses at the Bosporus are expected to be sufficient to stop any Axis advance. Egypt is only lightly defended, but so far neither Italy nor France has sufficient force deployed to mount an invasion.
The DL has by far more resources, soldiers, and everything else, but it will be almost impossible for them to equal Axis power anywhere in Europe.
France and Italy have very little chance of keeping their colonies outside of North Africa, and given the air and naval power of the DL, even North Africa will be difficult once forces are redeployed.
In case of hostilities, British commerce and reinforcements of Scandinavia will be at extreme danger, until the French surface navy in the Atlantic has been sunk. Subs will be a danger, but not as advanced as one would expect (since little resources could be diverted to the navy); neither have ASW weapons advanced much, as Japan didn't practice commerce warfare.
While the DL has experience in strategic bombardment, the air defenses faced in Europe will be far superior to those of Japan, so not all of that experience will actually be useful; on the other hand Germany didn't need to develop such sophisticated air defense networks, and will probably have to play more catch-up. But since France is likely the main target at first, there should be enough time to adept defenses.

So what about balance? Can the Axis win?

Neither the US nor the UK can maintain their current level of mobilization for long, unless there is war. So if they prepare for a few years and then manage to get strategic surprise, yes they can. It will even force the DL to deploy token forces to the annexed areas of the USSR that can then be overrun.
Or they can rush troops to Africa, and unleash their forces at once and hope they reach the Suez channel before British reinforcements arrive. With the Eastern Med secure, Turkey can not hold out, and Iraq/Arabia are under direct threat. If bases there can be secured (this is logistically not easy), convoy battles in the Atlantic and Indian Ocean will get interesting.
Meanwhile Britain is under threat of ballistic missiles, and large scale troop concentration in south England would be large enough to target, so a D-Day type landing will be difficult and even air bases may be in danger, and British industry may be partially neutralized. And while the US is the largest economy, the Axis combined is a match!
But can Germany produce enough BM and subs on such short notice?

For the Democratic powers, they'll need to clear the Axis positions outside Europe, and then secure bases on the Med islands. Then they'd need to invade at multiple points, knowing that the Axis can destroy any landing, but not all of them, and hope they can reinforce quickly enough to wear down the Axis. And that they'll conquer ports quickly and intact enough to supply the forces needed to vanquish the Axis. Is that even possible against German ballistic missiles? Or will they have to reduce the German industry to rubbish before they can even think about landing in Europe?
Victory may well be dependent on the assistance of the damned Bolsheviks. But what will that help cost? And will it do more than replace one totalitarian enemy with another?

Overall it's hard to see what could possible provoke the two blocks to clash... even with all the problems, everyone knows how bloody such a clash would be. And that chances are high that neither side will actually win - that the winner is determined by who lost less people. So just about perfect for a computer game.

Thoughts?

First of all, thank you very much for the work you contributed.

I like that version of the timeline very much, it is somewhat unconventional but nevertheless very nice and somewhat refreshing.
Indeed, what I like most is the resulting situation for the game-start. You forged something that is very close to what I imagined (apart from soviet deal with the Allies) and I can easily accept such minor changes in the concept (hope that General Grant is also that flexible )

Furthermore I can also become friend with the idea of the nuclear race within the timeline of the mod - in fact, that would create some nice new potential for tension for the player (I remember the Doomsday-sessions where I realized that my enemy already developed the next level nuke and I tried to catch up as fast as possible...) - and it would also increase the potential for a possible non-nuclear first-strike within the first few years for those desperate enough to try...

2 Questions though:

Germany went to war with Poland historically - why didn´t the Allies intervene? Only because Hitler honored Munich Agreement?

Soviet performance in 1940 was probably much worse than you described, especially as the new weaponry just began to tickle into the army in late 1940/ early 1941 - indeed, German forces would probably have also been a good deal lighter, nevertheless I suspect that Red Army combat-performance was considerably weaker in 1940 than in 1941 OTL (another aspect here is that they have no experience from the winter-war in Finland by that time)(another indicator to underline this assumption is what the very small but professional finnish army did to the Red Army historically), which should at least result in a kind of back-and-forth-movement within the first 2 years instead of a stalemate - especially as SU would have been at least as surprised by the German backstab as they where historically in 1941.

Black Guardian wrote:First of all, thank you very much for the work you contributed.

I like that version of the timeline very much, it is somewhat unconventional but nevertheless very nice and somewhat refreshing.
Indeed, what I like most is the resulting situation for the game-start. You forged something that is very close to what I imagined (apart from soviet deal with the Allies) and I can easily accept such minor changes in the concept (hope that General Grant is also that flexible )

You're welcome. I admit that the deal with the Soviets is... far fetched, but I believe Stalin would try anything at this point to increase tensions between the Axis and the democratic powers. And keeping the oil of the Caucasus out of German hands should be enough for Britain to accept the deal.

Black Guardian wrote:Furthermore I can also become friend with the idea of the nuclear race within the timeline of the mod - in fact, that would create some nice new potential for tension for the player (I remember the Doomsday-sessions where I realized that my enemy already developed the next level nuke and I tried to catch up as fast as possible...) - and it would also increase the potential for a possible non-nuclear first-strike within the first few years for those desperate enough to try...

Agreed. Hopefully there will be a way to realistically simulate the cost of such a program.

Black Guardian wrote:2 Questions though:

Germany went to war with Poland historically - why didn´t the Allies intervene? Only because Hitler honored Munich Agreement?

Yes. Hitler and Nazi Germany are nowadays so demonized that few people realize that there were few such feelings at that time. Even Jews did not see Nazi Germany as bad, for them it was mostly a return to normal after a period of liberalism.
It was when Hitler broke the Munich agreements that the Allies realized that Hitler would not stop. That's why they guaranteed Poland, and why they refused to back down. It had nothing to do with Poland or her people, it was all about Germany.
That's not to say they are happy Germany swallowed Poland, but it's not enough to go to war over.
Basically after Munich Germany had one more freebie before the Allies would stop her.

Black Guardian wrote:Soviet performance in 1940 was probably much worse than you described, especially as the new weaponry just began to tickle into the army in late 1940/ early 1941 - indeed, German forces would probably have also been a good deal lighter, nevertheless I suspect that Red Army combat-performance was considerably weaker in 1940 than in 1941 OTL (another aspect here is that they have no experience from the winter-war in Finland by that time)(another indicator to underline this assumption is what the very small but professional finnish army did to the Red Army historically), which should at least result in a kind of back-and-forth-movement within the first 2 years instead of a stalemate - especially as SU would have been at least as surprised by the German backstab as they where historically in 1941.

Well, there's been back and forth, but I didn't feel it necessary to include every offensive, just a few important events that describe how I imagine the war could proceed. If details are necessary, I'll have a closer look at the historic campaigns and come up with more details.
German performance: At the start of WWII and in the early years Czech production accounted for ~15% of the German tanks. Also during 39 and 40 a large percentage were useless Pz. I and Pz. II. So the useful German tank force will be far smaller that historically in 40, and even more so than the force actually committed to Barbarossa. And many German tanks in this period had light guns that would have problems with Soviet tanks.
Germany will not have looted most of Europe, so the army will also be far shorter on motor transport.
Another problem is logistics. The Army starts further east and so has to build up far further from the established high quality infrastructure of Germany, and they will have less than nine months to actually prepare. Also unlike historically, Hitler did take a surprising opportunity, so the planning for this offensive is a lot less than for Barbarossa.
A very significant factor is that the armored warfare theory was only advocated by a minority of German generals until after the campaigns in the West. In fact they were only used in the West because an accident caused the plans for the more traditional offensive to fall into Dutch hands. So Germany will probably plan for a more traditional advance! Not that they can actually do something else with the number of tanks actually in service at that point in time.
While we're at the campaign in the West, without it Germany will have far less veterans with combat experience, one of their major advantages during Barbarossa.

The Soviets on the other hand are in a mixed position. Historically the troops had just been moved westward into the recently conquered areas and the fortifications at the original defensive line were dismantled for transport to the new front. Now they are in tact, and the fighting will be where the Soviets have expected to fight for decades. The tanks are of lesser quality, but not more so than in 41 (where T-34 were rare), so the practical difference is far less significant than for Germany.

Now, the lessons of the Winter War may not have been universally adopted, but they were learned. Historically the Winter War was from Nov. 30th 39 to March 13th 40. In this scenario Hitler attacks because the war is still hot in June 40. It's probable the Soviets have already learned more than they did in history.

Another factor to consider is mobilization. Germany is at peace after the Poland campaign. If they mobilize or stay mobilized, the Soviets will know that something is up. While Stalin did not want to face the threat of war with Germany, he does not have the excuse (in his own mind) that Hitler wouldn't start a two front war. So some prudent steps will likely be taken before the advance (or Germany will have to fight with hastily mobilized units rushed to the front; even that'd give the Soviets some time to react).

Finally the comparison to Finland is only partially applicable. In the Winter War the Soviets tried to advance with poor logistic through very bad terrain. Supplying offenses and defenses is different.

Without the massive encirclements in the first few months of the war, the Soviets are in a better position to stop Germany in the future, and to move industry/population to safety.

Because of all these reasons, I think the German advance would be slower, but in the end more supportable. Since neither sides armored force will gain a significant advantage over their adversary, there'll be no large encirclements.


It is of course possible for Germany to do far better (or far worse), but I can't see how such a scenario could be balanced. The US needed NATO to counter the Soviets, so Germany after a total success in the East would be too powerful to realistically challenge. But I think I remained within historic probabilities.

Okay - tonight I came up with some other questions that are important for this new European setup:

As Czechoslovakia still exists - what is it´s role in the new Europe? Is it part of the DL hoping to be protected from the possible German threat? Is it strictly neutral like Switzerland?


No offensive in the West means:

Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg are still separate entities on continental Europe, in direct zone of Axis influence. What could have happened to those?
Netherlands probably lost their colonies in the pacific war and afterwards to independence-movements there, unable to keep them under control.

Apart from this probably very clear point, whats the direction for those countries to go? Neutral? Axis after coups in their gov? DL for protection?

Probably they will become a hot-spot in the early game when the Blocks gamble for their participation in either alliance....

Czechoslovakia exists and is part of the Axis. You're thinking too much about ideology; it was important, but it wasn't the only important thing during WWII. Czechoslovakia saw that their only chance for independence was cooperation with Germany, so they did it. How eager a partner they are is open to discussion; they may have most of their army fighting in support of the Axis, or they could merely supply tanks and ammunition as their share of the burden; with either volunteers serving in the Wehrmacht, or a few elite units fighting.
They would probably prefer neutrality (why spend money and blood on a war you don't profit from?), but since Germany wasn't about to accept it, this is the best option they had available.

Belgium/Netherlands/Luxembourg are neutral and trying to stay out of the brewing conflict. Belgium and Luxembourg can stay neutral, since neither has anything of importance to either side. If they really do depends on Belgian politics, of course, but I doubt either side wants to force them to decide at the moment. I seem to remember that their military was somewhat more important before WWII than most games suggest.
Netherlands is another case. They were probably attacked by Japan (I'd go with unsuccessfully; without war in Europe, the Netherlands can deploy some well equipped troops to defend their islands, and Japan never demonstrated the ability to force hostile beaches - that'd weaken independence movements as well) and cooperated to some degree with the DL.
Given their exposed position, they likely want to stay neutral as well; if they can pull it off is another question.

Belgium and the Netherlands are most important because of their harbors; the DL will need them to transport troops and supplies to the continent, and the Axis will want to deny them to the DL.
My suggestion would be that both of them try to stay neutral, but once the DL are ready to land in Europe late in the war, they will consider DOWing them and take those ports. The Axis may DOW them when they can spare enough troops to defeat them. In turn, the Allies are likely to sell weapons cheaply to both powers to prevent that (and entice them to join the DL) before the war.
If the Axis attack them, or forces both to join, it should start the war. Those ports present the largest danger to Britain; French and German ports/shipyards are bad enough, but the addition of those ports would place Britain in an even worse situation.
On the other hand, their inclusion in the DL would probably change very little. The position is too exposed to hold, without overwhelming commitment; that's impractical during peace time.

You must remember that powers like Sweden, Switzerland, and Spain weren't allowed to remain neutral because they wanted to be, but because neither side considered them worthwhile enough to attack. Too few resources to matter, serving better as neutral trading partner, or simple geographic position that made it useless were more important than the desire of the country.
Finland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Baltic states - all of them would have preferred to remain neutral.

Luxembourg will probably be annexed peacefully, like Czech provinces were historically, if Germany pressed them hard enough. Once it's surrounded by the Axis, fighting becomes useless. In that situation the government would fold.

Sorry to not have answered earlier, as the co-leader of the project I should had taken more interests in this...

I have read most of what have been posted here and I must admit that alot of efforts were put into the TL suggestions (thinking mostly about Drake).

My comments about Drake's TL:

I must say that it is very interesting and, as BG said, original and refreshing.

But what bother me is... at the end, it doesn't looks like WW2 alot. I'm a little lost but after reading the whole timeline, its fine. But will everyone be fine? I think few peoples will recognize the world in this.

I don't want to apear as close-minded but... I don't know how to express it. I just feel that something is wrong- maybe I'll find the words later.


But well- if we make a timeline, its because we want to achieve a result, a different world. And we want this world to be interesting and balanced. So in this case its almost appropriate to start by the end and to try to figure what will the world looks like if event X happens or if it doesn't, etc. I hope I am not too confusing.



It would be great if you posted some kind of map, on wich we can see the distribution of the balance of power in this world. Or at least a list of who is on wich side.
Exemple, with OTL WW2 somewhere around '42.

I have the same opinion as Gerneral Grant. Even it is said that Fatherland II and the novel will just have the name and the seting of a WWII winning Germany in common, it should be somehow a ahistorical outcoming of classic WWII. This is in my opinion the charm of Fatherland.


In fact there are some possibilities to alter history, but I really like your idea of a intervention of allied forces in Finland as breaking point. Especially as the British and French planned also some kind of a second Krim war against the Stalinist (Those documents the Germans find in a French train) and I'am sure the Allies let Mr. Hitler go so wide, because they want him as a bulwark against Stalin.

So, Allies are bussy in Finland. Then it comes to Danzig or War. Hitler take his chance rush poland and start Fall Gelb and Blau already in 1939 with success, as there a lesser troops in france.
Then he prepared Sealion for mid 1940 without the BOB like we know.

I read the memories of Skorzeny and von Manstein in the last Month. Both were involved in the preparations of Sealion (Skorzeny as member of LSSAH and von Manstein as Commanding Officer of a Army Corps) and analyze it. Both say that with four to six weeks more preparation time and a better use of the Luftwaffe a landing had be possible.
Von Manstein also argues that with out the stop for Dunkerque, that in mid 1940 there was no efficient possibility of a British defense. In my scenario there was never a Dunkerque Situation, but it would likely that the BEF now stucks in Finland/Russia and so there is also no defence.
So Britain could fall in 1940.
With loosing the isle, the loss of the BEF in Finland (as the front would collapse when Britain falls) and the danger of a expanding Stalin (as there is still war and a Sowjet threat for Persia/Afghanistan => India) there would be the possibility for peace in the West.)
Then we have weakened USSR, no possibility of an US Invasion in Northern France, no Strategic Warfare against Germany, just one Front against the USSR.
Then a four/five year war in the east, an US landing in Morocco (Still Operation Torch as only possibility of an US Approach to Europe.) An hard fight between US, Free Britain and Free French Forces against Africa Corps, Italians and French in Morcco, Algeria and Tunisia. (May with the try of a Operation Dragon [Landing in Southern French]).
This scenario could go into a Cold war, if the Allied Forces are drown into the sea and the Germans also won in the East or a parallel testing of nuclear weapons, so that both side doesn't want to risk a strike against their capitals.

Hm, maybe not that good scenario but something to speak about, as a working Sealion is one of the classic Turning Points.

My personal problem with this alternate outcome is not a historical one, but a gameplay-issue.

Certainly, it would be possible to have such a situation that leeds into Cold War. However, once the Could War should turn hot (or... warm - which means: conventional warfare first), then we have the same situation as in the old Fatherland: Not a very tense gameplay, as warfare only focusses on naval aspects, the two powers struggling for control over the oceans SEEMS like a nice setup, but it has proven otherwise: It is rather long-drawn and without enough action.
A quick and tense invasion of Britain (or Normandy, for that matter) would bring a lot more interesting gameplay, especially as the war for the Ocean would still go on as a second front, struggling for the allied Supply-lines. This is why I would rather prefer a solution with Britain still in the allied block, or at least a similarly challanging sitation for both partys.

So, feel free to continue brainstorming

South/Southern Central Africa still as a base for the Allies?
The Rest-Sowjets and an allied China/Indochina + India as an starting point?

In modern warfare this shouldn't be the longest distances...

Fighting in the jungles or deserts with poor terrain, bad supply and only limited targets is not really what I call tense. At least it was not in HoI2, as movement took very long. Furthermore it is not threatening the core of both blocks, no reason to really bother for both factions. Africa is only a side-theatre - how long would it take to conquer a good route to a staging-point for an Allied invasion into Europe?

But before judging too early on this topic I will first try some warfare in africa with HoI3-scale.

Hi this is my first post, I am not sure wether this has been discussed already or not, so forgive me if it already has and please give me link to the site

I have a slight problem with Southern Italy. Sure, until the end of war, it is all right, but after the founding of new europe, it is unlcear to me, how it can exist. I mean the only entrace there via the small straight at southern spain. The population there is low, the nation undeveloped etc. It is hard to belive that the States can actually suport a nation so far away constantly, that is blocked on all siedes against all of europe. I know that you want an iron curtain, but the only reason West and East Germany could be created was becouse there was Britan, France, Benelux, later Spain and Portugal and Skandinavia. Basicaly all of west Europe with its industrial might, so West germany had a zone of "frieds" where they could trade etc. and create an own Economy. South Italy will not haeve that possibilty. With even the Caucasius as Axis and Turkey I imagine quite Axis friendly, it would only leave North Afrika as a trading partner. Which is undeveloped and hated/hates the Italians quite a lot. Mabye not openly hostile sure, but no friends either.
So a total blockade for adecade would make South Italy more like Cuba then West Germany. Also I can imagine after a succesfull war for the sxis there will be quite a lot pro fashists in south Italy.

Maybe a better way would be a split Turkey, the east there even today (in OTL) wants independence, and I can immagine after a defeat in North Afrika the allies take all of the middle east and manage to split Turkey... One could also implement negotiations about Israel then... ???? maybe.

feel free to disagree, it was just an idea.

Very nice to have someone else discussing here except me and Karelian

I have to agree to your points, but instead of saying that it is absolutely impossible for a realistic creation of a south-italian state, I take your point a little further and respond:
The reasons that you mentioned are EXACTLY the reasons why I want Southern Italy as an allied country into the setup. This gives a perfect gunpowder-keg that can explode anytime.

Furthermore, in a struggle between ideologies it is simply no argument to give Southern Italy to the Germans. It is a bastion of freedom in the South, a direct frontline to the Nazis and it will not be dealt about it.
I will give you the best comparison that comes into mind: Berlin.
In your view, Berlin was totally doomed as well, had not chance of existing - but the Western Allies didn´t even THINK about giving West Berlin to the Soviets. Even not when they blockaded the land connections and harrassed allied planes trying to supply the city via air. The Americans where even threatening with nuclear war, which finally forced the Soviets to stop the Blockade.

I can imagine a similar scenario when Germany tries to blockade the trade with Southern Italy through Suez and/or Gibraltar when they feel like it. Huge potential for a cunning and tense ingame-story, if you ask me.

Should we take this out and reduce the fun for the player?
Should we eradicate Southern Italy and thus a challenge for players who feel like they need a challenge?

In my opinion we should not, what do you think about it?

Phönix wrote:Hi this is my first post, I am not sure wether this has been discussed already or not, so forgive me if it already has and please give me link to the site

I have a slight problem with Southern Italy. Sure, until the end of war, it is all right, but after the founding of new europe, it is unlcear to me, how it can exist. I mean the only entrace there via the small straight at southern spain. The population there is low, the nation undeveloped etc. It is hard to belive that the States can actually suport a nation so far away constantly, that is blocked on all siedes against all of europe. I know that you want an iron curtain, but the only reason West and East Germany could be created was becouse there was Britan, France, Benelux, later Spain and Portugal and Skandinavia. Basicaly all of west Europe with its industrial might, so West germany had a zone of "frieds" where they could trade etc. and create an own Economy. South Italy will not haeve that possibilty. With even the Caucasius as Axis and Turkey I imagine quite Axis friendly, it would only leave North Afrika as a trading partner. Which is undeveloped and hated/hates the Italians quite a lot. Mabye not openly hostile sure, but no friends either.
So a total blockade for adecade would make South Italy more like Cuba then West Germany. Also I can imagine after a succesfull war for the sxis there will be quite a lot pro fashists in south Italy.

Maybe a better way would be a split Turkey, the east there even today (in OTL) wants independence, and I can immagine after a defeat in North Afrika the allies take all of the middle east and manage to split Turkey... One could also implement negotiations about Israel then... ???? maybe.

feel free to disagree, it was just an idea.

Greetings, nice to see new posters around here.

Now then, to the Italian question. It all comes down to what Stalin said in OTL: "Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach."
The borders of RSI and Republic of Italy are virtually identical to frontlines between Axis and Allied armies in the Italian Front at the end of WWII. When the Zürich Accord officially ended WWII, the following peace treaty recognized the fact that southern Italy belonged to the Allied camp. And even though the map is unclear about the matter (being German propaganda poster after all ), Spain remained neutral during WWII and thus Gibraltar is still firmly in British hands. Suez, on the other hand, was successfully returned to Allied control during the Middle-Eastern War as Nasser´s attempt to nationalize the Canal region failed. Thus the major peacetime shipping lines between Asia and the British Isles still go through the Med, and Italy is therefore linked to the market areas of the Free World. And since the Italian democracy is the only state in continental Europe to be at least partially liberated by Allied forces, it is way too important ally to be abandoned for mere prestige reasons alone. In OTL the United States defended and supported South Korea and South Vietnam despite the fact they were considerable less important to overall US strategic interests than South Italy in this timeline.

For more info about postwar Western economic integration and position of Italy, check this AAR:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=263106

Black Guardian wrote: Very nice to have someone else discussing here except me and Karelian

I have to agree to your points, but instead of saying that it is absolutely impossible for a realistic creation of a south-italian state, I take your point a little further and respond:
The reasons that you mentioned are EXACTLY the reasons why I want Southern Italy as an allied country into the setup. This gives a perfect gunpowder-keg that can explode anytime.

Ahh, so it is kinda youre intentions to start the war via South Itlay? Could work. Would give the Axis more then an excuse for a war, the States did nearly start a war becouse of Cuba IRL, so the Axis would start a war even more likley for Rome, which is also very important for the Axis Ideology. (Many things in Nazi Germany, including the Greeting was from the Roman empire, and Italy was the first Fashist country, so Rome will be hard to swallow).

But the are some aspects I would like to understand too.
1. Why did the Axis agree to give up Italy? After a victory in the east, it is ridicilious to think that the allies could hold south Italy against the might of the Reich. I just cant see the British holding Italy against the might of the whole Wehrmacht. Given that Germany defeated Soviet in 43, and the war ending in 46, this leaves 3 years of war aginst Britan, sure you need to garision the east but with 16 million soldiers fighting in the east, I imagine at least 6 million could be moved to Italy by 44-45, how can the British stop them? If for nothing else they have to supply them ffrom Britan, there is only so many you can. The landing in Normandy was with 300.000 man and they had supply problems, now you have to go all the way through a tiny straight, (which is an other topic, why Spain didnt join after the victory in the east but ok)and then supply to Itlay... thats a long way. So it means that Germany decided not to take Itlay.. why?

2.

Furthermore, in a struggle between ideologies it is simply no argument to give Southern Italy to the Germans. It is a bastion of freedom in the South, a direct frontline to the Nazis and it will not be dealt about it.

If by 46 the Axis dont have it, sure, which brings us to my first point, but given that for some reason they cant/wont take it, I imagine "traiding" it with Skadninavia would be somthing that would at least be considered by both sides. Italy will be hard to hold for the allies, the fashist support is big, and after the German victory it will be even bigger, Mussolini lives, and many will think that if they would have followed him they would have won like Germany did in the end, so many will be very hostile. Surpressing this will be very hard for Britan, of course they can do it, no doubt, but it might cost them the image they will try to create about themselves.

I will give you the best comparison that comes into mind: Berlin.
In your view, Berlin was totally doomed as well, had not chance of existing - but the Western Allies didn´t even THINK about giving West Berlin to the Soviets. Even not when they blockaded the land connections and harrassed allied planes trying to supply the city via air. The Americans where even threatening with nuclear war, which finally forced the Soviets to stop the Blockade.

That is kinda what I mean. The Germans were fighting the Reds and the Reds did unspeakeble things to them, but Italy was Germanys friend and the Fashists there will support it, and there are many fashists. Yes, many who hated fashists as well, but half of them were comunists. So the Fashists alone might even be, while not the majority, the biggest group in South Italy. Given that the dictator still lives and that the Axis won at least partialy, the support will be limited I imagine. Many things will nodepend on the King, does he support the Allies or the Fashsts in this timeline? If the allies, then he might indeed bring some of the right winged people with him.
Also it is one thing to support a city for a short while, an other to support a nation (or half) for decades. The Axis were more agressive and they now control all of europe, why lift the blocade at any point? Of yourse now you have a direct sea route, so they wont starve to death, but I think its save to say that the economy will be very low. IRL, west Berlin was far richer then East, the live standard was higher, it was free and the people genually supported it. Will it be the same in italy?

but indeed this coulbe be a good way to start a war. Some people in South Italy revolt and the Axis see it as an excuse to go to "lierate" them.

I can imagine a similar scenario when Germany tries to blockade the trade with Southern Italy through Suez and/or Gibraltar when they feel like it. Huge potential for a cunning and tense ingame-story, if you ask me.

Absolutley

Should we take this out and reduce the fun for the player?
Should we eradicate Southern Italy and thus a challenge for players who feel like they need a challenge?

Youre right in some sence, I was jsut thinking that an other nation might be mroe reasonable, like Skandinavia or Turkey.
But you are right, neither of them is so sure to start a new war.

The borders of RSI and Republic of Italy are virtually identical to frontlines between Axis and Allied armies in the Italian Front at the end of WWII.

See point 1.

Thus the major peacetime shipping lines between Asia and the British Isles still go through the Med, and Italy is therefore linked to the market areas of the Free World.

Cuba was technicaly linked to the Soviets as well, and the economical superiority of the allies will not be so great as it was against the Comunists. Western Europe was a cornerstone of American wealth, now they only have Britan, a South America that hates them, a India that is going to revolt, big times, a China that is Comunistic (an other point I would like to discuss at some point, but this is Off topic now) and a underdeveloped, hostile Africa. The Oil rich Middle east is bound to be pro Axis and that only leave Japain and Korea for the Allies as reasonable trading partner. I can imagine with a strong Axis the Japanese wont so easily forget the Atomic bombs, so might not be the most realible friend. Sure, they will do as they are told as long as the US army stands there but friendship might be harder to find.

And since the Italian democracy is the only state in continental Europe to be at least partially liberated by Allied forces, it is way too important ally to be abandoned for mere prestige reasons alone. In OTL the United States defended and supported South Korea and South Vietnam despite the fact they were considerable less important to overall US strategic interests than South Italy in this timeline.

That is very true, but I wuold suggest the idea of a trade. That is what my whole argument is actually about. Even if for some reason the Axis cant take Italy, why not trade it for Skandinavia or the Benelux countries? Both would be better for Britan, since they are closer and they were allied, and it would be better for the Axis as well since Rome is very importent to them.


Sorry a rather big comment

Phönix wrote:
But the are some aspects I would like to understand too.
1. Why did the Axis agree to give up Italy? After a victory in the east, it is ridicilious to think that the allies could hold south Italy against the might of the Reich. I just cant see the British holding Italy against the might of the whole Wehrmacht. Given that Germany defeated Soviet in 43, and the war ending in 46, this leaves 3 years of war aginst Britan, sure you need to garision the east but with 16 million soldiers fighting in the east, I imagine at least 6 million could be moved to Italy by 44-45, how can the British stop them? If for nothing else they have to supply them ffrom Britan, there is only so many you can. The landing in Normandy was with 300.000 man and they had supply problems, now you have to go all the way through a tiny straight, (which is an other topic, why Spain didnt join after the victory in the east but ok)and then supply to Itlay... thats a long way. So it means that Germany decided not to take Itlay.. why?

I would really like to see the source of this figure of 16 million Axis soldiers in Eastern Front??! More to the point: Germany and Soviet Union signed an uneasy truce at Kirovograd in June 1943. The primary reason for this was the deteriorating internal situation in Soviet Union, since the Red Army was far from defeated despite its severe setbacks during the two previous years. Stalin calculated that this would finally push the Western Allies to fully commit their forces against Germany while giving him enough time to reorganize the Red Army, restore order within the Soviet society and then return to war once substantial German forces had been redirected to West after Allies had truly created their second front to European continent. For this reason alone Germany was not in a position to shift significant forces away from the Eastern Front. Supply-wise Italy was located to the center of Allied shipping lines between Europe and Asia, and with the Med sealed from German U-boats and Regia Marina in shambles it was relatively easy to supply the Allied armies in Italy through the advanced harbours and infrastructure of the country. The Italian front is narrow, and after the failure of Overlord both sides commit more forces to a front where terrain strongly favours the defender whether the attack is going north- or southwards. The war in Italy stagnates, with neither side having adequate strength (and in the case of battle-worn Allies, political willingness) to attack.

Phönix wrote:If by 46 the Axis dont have it, sure, which brings us to my first point, but given that for some reason they cant/wont take it, I imagine "traiding" it with Skadninavia would be somthing that would at least be considered by both sides. Italy will be hard to hold for the allies, the fashist support is big, and after the German victory it will be even bigger, Mussolini lives, and many will think that if they would have followed him they would have won like Germany did in the end, so many will be very hostile. Surpressing this will be very hard for Britan, of course they can do it, no doubt, but it might cost them the image they will try to create about themselves.

See the previous post and points above. Can you give historical paraller for such a trade? Especially since the strategic importance of occupied Norway and Denmark for Allies is generally far lower than southern Italy? Italy is not hard to hold, the support of Fascists collapsed in Republic of Italy just like in OTL since no matter whether Germany "won" or not, Il Duce drew the country to ruin. Mussolini himself dies in 1946: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6000415&postcount=37 and after the bitter Civil War the remaining Fascist-symphatizers (what good did the regime really bring to Italy, disastrous war leading to political division and utter ruin?) have moved to the northern side of the emerging Iron Curtain. Whereas the Allies offer political freedom and extensive economic aid? Sure, political terrorism will be a problem in Italy with Communists in RSI and remaining Fascist fringe groups in Republic of Italy, but generally the Italian people have little reason to feel bitter towards the Western Allies.

Phönix wrote:That is kinda what I mean. The Germans were fighting the Reds and the Reds did unspeakeble things to them, but Italy was Germanys friend and the Fashists there will support it, and there are many fashists. Yes, many who hated fashists as well, but half of them were comunists. So the Fashists alone might even be, while not the majority, the biggest group in South Italy. Given that the dictator still lives and that the Axis won at least partialy, the support will be limited I imagine. Many things will nodepend on the King, does he support the Allies or the Fashsts in this timeline? If the allies, then he might indeed bring some of the right winged people with him.
Also it is one thing to support a city for a short while, an other to support a nation (or half) for decades. The Axis were more agressive and they now control all of europe, why lift the blocade at any point? Of yourse now you have a direct sea route, so they wont starve to death, but I think its save to say that the economy will be very low. IRL, west Berlin was far richer then East, the live standard was higher, it was free and the people genually supported it. Will it be the same in italy?

but indeed this coulbe be a good way to start a war. Some people in South Italy revolt and the Axis see it as an excuse to go to "liberate" them.

I can imagine a similar scenario when Germany tries to blockade the trade with Southern Italy through Suez and/or Gibraltar when they feel like it. Huge potential for a cunning and tense ingame-story, if you ask me.

Germans saw Italian capitulation in 1943 as betrayal and from then on used the RSI as a mere puppet regime to support their war effort in the country. I really disagree with your vision of Fascist support remaining high in southern Italy after the war due the Italian Civil War. As for controlling and blockades: as I said before Gibraltar and Suez are in Allied hands so there is no realistic possibility to blockade southern Italy. Furthermore, the world narrowly avoided nuclear war in 1946 and both camps are therefore (for now) consolidating their positions within their spheres of interest and slowly seeking to expand their ideology and influence to the emerging Third World. And yes, just think the paraller of Eastern and Western Germany. The Iron Curtain of this timeline is set up to stop people from fleeing from RSI to Republic of Italy, the Salo regime is that popular. As for the blockade attempts, Nasser´s gambit in Egypt started the Middle-Eastern War and the Allies were willing to interfere pretty much because of the vulnerable position of Italy in a situation where Axis-friendly Egypt would control Suez.

Phönix wrote:That is very true, but I wuold suggest the idea of a trade. That is what my whole argument is actually about. Even if for some reason the Axis cant take Italy, why not trade it for Skandinavia or the Benelux countries? Both would be better for Britan, since they are closer and they were allied, and it would be better for the Axis as well since Rome is very importent to them.
Sorry a rather big comment

I see your point, hopefully you realize why I´m not inclided to follow such proposal - neither side was really in a position to dictate terms nor willing to compromise in the Italian question.
For the position of Rome, see this: http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10359773&postcount=374

I would really like to see the source of this figure of 16 million Axis soldiers in Eastern Front??!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht
It says that the total amount was 18 mil. I assume it was with the casulties, so -4 mil or so, -0.5 who fought in the western front and we have roughly 13.5 million, + about 0.5 Finns, + about 1 mill of SS + the other axis nations who would I belive all together gather 1 million, I dont know the number exactly.
So 16 million, a rough estimate, might have been +- 1 million. Also given that Stalingrad never happened and the war in this timeline was rather favourable for Germany, I belive the casulites are far less here then in OTL, so the young boys wouldnt need to be enlisted.
But however, I dont think it makes too much of a diffrence here.

More to the point: Germany and Soviet Union signed an uneasy truce at Kirovograd in June 1943. The primary reason for this was the deteriorating internal situation in Soviet Union, since the Red Army was far from defeated despite its severe setbacks during the two previous years. Stalin calculated that this would finally push the Western Allies to fully commit their forces against Germany while giving him enough time to reorganize the Red Army, restore order within the Soviet society and then return to war once substantial German forces had been redirected to West after Allies had truly created their second front to European continent. For this reason alone Germany was not in a position to shift significant forces away from the Eastern Front.

Sorry but this is a point I find hard to understand. The way I know you need less troops to guard a border, even if you expect a war every second, then to actually fight it.. much less. At least 2 mil. could have been cleared like that. If not, Germany would have collapsed anyway. There is no way that they could have supported such an army without mass workingcamps in the east. Somthing that afaik in this timeline didnt happen so strong, as the Russians relieved the Germans in the antipartisan duty didnt they? Which also clears an other mil I would say, since the fight against partisans was hell.
So I do honestly think that even if the "peace" meant just an armestice for a couple of years, (everyone at least expected it) that 3 mil. soldiers could be cleared without much pain. Now add the Italian fashists, which would have all together been able to gather 0.5 mil soldiers, supported by Germany for a ruch at Rome (if not then many Italians could be forcefully recruted, somthing that happened a lot in WW2. So you have at least 3.5 mil Axis soldiers within a year ready to strike, that is how I see, but of course it is just an opiniion that I can not possibly prove.

Supply-wise Italy was located to the center of Allied shipping lines between Europe and Asia, and with the Med sealed from German U-boats and Regia Marina in shambles it was relatively easy to supply the Allied armies in Italy through the advanced harbours and infrastructure of the country. The Italian front is narrow, and after the failure of Overlord both sides commit more forces to a front where terrain strongly favours the defender whether the attack is going north- or southwards. The war in Italy stagnates, with neither side having adequate strength (and in the case of battle-worn Allies, political willingness) to attack.

Was it easier to supply then Normandy? And even there was a couple of supply problems. But in the end, it is a queation of what one wants to belive. It is an alternative History, so of course there is no right and wrong here, just what one want to happen. The only thing here is how probable it would haven been. I belive that it would not have been very probable for the Axis not to try to reclaim Europe for 3 years after a victroy in the east, even a shacky. But then again, some might argue that the victory of Germany in the east was even less probable, or the failure of oberation Overlord etc. So in the end, "I can live with that", if you know what I mean

Can you give historical paraller for such a trade? Especially since the strategic importance of occupied Norway and Denmark for Allies is generally far lower than southern Italy? Italy is not hard to hold, the support of Fascists collapsed in Republic of Italy just like in OTL since no matter whether Germany "won" or not, Il Duce drew the country to ruin. Mussolini himself dies in 1946: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6000415&postcount=37 and after the bitter Civil War the remaining Fascist-symphatizers (what good did the regime really bring to Italy, disastrous war leading to political division and utter ruin?) have moved to the northern side of the emerging Iron Curtain.

I think there is a missunderstanding the word trade. I dont mean that Hitler and Truman go on TV and officialy say "hey, today we traded this nation for this, and tomorrow, who knows, ... you might be next ) ( ), but more like a sectret one. You know the kind of secret that only a handfull know of its exisistence and it is kept officialy secret for a century and then it accidentaly burn to ashes )
Then you make a civil war or what not and change owners. So of course I can not give you any examples as such, but I belive that such things happened in the course of history.

And why is South Itlay more important then the Benelux? Benelux was richer, and if the war got hot, a great place to attack, also in case Soviet attacked, this is the kind of place just made for a backstab.

Whereas the Allies offer political freedom and extensive economic aid? Sure, political terrorism will be a problem in Italy with Communists in RSI and remaining Fascist fringe groups in Republic of Italy, but generally the Italian people have little reason to feel bitter towards the Western Allies

So in this timeline the Industry of the allies is so much bigger that they can give Southitaly more economical support then the Axis? Well, ...

And while the Fahist may be decimated, somthing like that has a way of returning as long as the Ideological group still exists. So while in 46 the number of fashists might be small, due to its location and history, a revival is very well plausible for me.
And finaly, to say that they have no reason to feel bitter... theire nation is brocken in two and they are occupied, it is a reason to feel bitter. The reason nothing happened in Germany was becouse theire faction was anihilated and the only choise was Soviet or allies.

The Iron Curtain of this timeline is set up to stop people from fleeing from RSI to Republic of Italy, the Salo regime is that popular

So the Axis built the wall this time?

I see your point, hopefully you realize why I´m not inclided to follow such proposal - neither side was really in a position to dictate terms nor willing to compromise in the Italian question.

well youre mod you decide. In the end, it doesent mather, it is AH so everything is ok.

Phönix wrote:...But however, I dont think it makes too much of a diffrence here.

"This figure was put forward by historian Rüdiger Overmans and represents the total number of people who ever served in the Wehrmacht (and from 1935 to 1945 for that) and not the force strength of the Wehrmacht at any point." And its really Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe and Heer combined from all fronts with four pre-war years (when the army was rapidly expanded) taken to the calculation as well as the last-ditch formations made up from old men and children.

In OTL Germans were able to field roughly 3+ million strong force in the East (with declining quality as casualties mounted) while the available manpower for Soviet Union peaked in 1944 when the RKKA was roughly 6.8 million strong. Thus the figures you represented are way, way too high.

Phönix wrote:Sorry but this is a point I find hard to understand. The way I know you need less troops to guard a border, even if you expect a war every second, then to actually fight it.. much less. At least 2 mil. could have been cleared like that. If not, Germany would have collapsed anyway. There is no way that they could have supported such an army without mass workingcamps in the east. Somthing that afaik in this timeline didnt happen so strong, as the Russians relieved the Germans in the antipartisan duty didnt they? Which also clears an other mil I would say, since the fight against partisans was hell.

So I do honestly think that even if the "peace" meant just an armestice for a couple of years, (everyone at least expected it) that 3 mil. soldiers could be cleared without much pain. Now add the Italian fashists, which would have all together been able to gather 0.5 mil soldiers, supported by Germany for a ruch at Rome (if not then many Italians could be forcefully recruted, somthing that happened a lot in WW2. So you have at least 3.5 mil Axis soldiers within a year ready to strike, that is how I see, but of course it is just an opiniion that I can not possibly prove.

Germans left over hundred divisions to garrison the Eastern Front after Brest-Litovsk when Russia was way more beaten than Soviet Union in this ATL in 1943, and I see no reason for them to be less cautious when they manage to win the war in the East for a second time. Do note that the partisan war in the East did not stop to the truce accord. Germans were able to release forces from former Eastern Front, that is true. But, and this is important: they set them up for reserves to France and Balkans and bolstered the defenses of Italian Front. Counterattack in the Italian front would have forced them to bleed and struggle in the same terrain where they had successfully opposed the Allies for years, and tied down the experienced reserves they wanted to use for bolstering Atlantic Wall and defenses of Fortress Europe in other fronts.

As for the occupation policy: It mostly included a different approach in the Baltic states and Ukraine where a deal was made between Ukrainian nationalists and German leadership (as envisioned by Rosenberg and Ostministerium) - the occupied parts of Russia proper still witnessed the horrors of war pretty much as in OTL.

Phönix wrote:Was it easier to supply then Normandy? And even there was a couple of supply problems. But in the end, it is a queation of what one wants to belive. It is an alternative History, so of course there is no right and wrong here, just what one want to happen. The only thing here is how probable it would haven been. I belive that it would not have been very probable for the Axis not to try to reclaim Europe for 3 years after a victroy in the east, even a shacky. But then again, some might argue that the victory of Germany in the east was even less probable, or the failure of oberation Overlord etc. So in the end, "I can live with that", if you know what I mean

As a student of history I still think that good alternative history should first and foremost focus on possibilities that people living in the time period in question considered realistic alternatives. While it is still ultimately all open to debate and personal opinions, I want to emphasize that the victory in the East in this storyline is really close-run thing and a result of Stalin´s miscalculation. Considering that both Germany and USSR at times considered truce and that the Russian example of WWI was something Stalin had personally lived through the original inventors of the world of "Prisoners of Silence" ended up with a solution I can live with. Good that it applies to you as well

[quote="Phönix"]So in this timeline the Industry of the allies is so much bigger that they can give South Italy more economical support then the Axis? Well, ... [quote]

It will still take decades before the standard of living in Republic of Italy reaches parity with RSI - while RSI inherited most of Italy´s strategic industries decades of inefficient corporatism and planned economy can work wonders when compared to open-handed US support and access to emerging Western free trade area. Do consider that if the United States sends even the historical number of Marshall Aid and the number of receiving countries is considerably smaller than in OTL, the net effect is a huge boost for Italian economy.

[quote="Phönix"]And while the Fahist may be decimated, somthing like that has a way of returning as long as the Ideological group still exists. So while in 46 the number of fashists might be small, due to its location and history, a revival is very well plausible for me. [quote]

This is naturally true to a certain extent, but people are first and foremost bitter towards the failed Fascist regime. Just bear in mind that in a free society neighbouring totalitarian state propaganda tends to have same effect as in South Korea and West Germany. Just think of it: "Last time we brought you war and misery and managed to get our country totally defeated and split up by warring superpowers, but just give us a second chance and you´ll see that...eh) Nevertheless this question and right-wing terrorism will form a key part of the gameplay in postwar Italian politics in the South.

Phönix wrote:So the Axis built the wall this time?

Yep, once the population flight from Neuropa to British Isles and especially to Southern Italy from RSI becomes an issue soon after the war.

Phönix wrote:well youre mod you decide. In the end, it doesent mather, it is AH so everything is ok.

Asking questions and presenting differing opinions is still a good thing, so thanks for your comments.

It will still take decades before the standard of living in Republic of Italy reaches parity with RSI - while RSI inherited most of Italy´s strategic industries decades of inefficient corporatism and planned economy can work wonders when compared to open-handed US support and access to emerging Western free trade area. Do consider that if the United States sends even the historical number of Marshall Aid and the number of receiving countries is considerably smaller than in OTL, the net effect is a huge boost for Italian economy.

Yes while the initial support will be higher then in OTL, I hardly think that the States will be able to keep it up as they did in OTL since the Economy of the States will not be so strong as in OTL after the war. I belive this primarily due to 3 reasons.
1. here the war lasted longer, hence more involvement of the US and since Germany here could actually fight back in the air after 44, the war will be much more costly.
2. In OTL the States suddenly gained a whole new market that they controlled, and could increase the production serveraly, also the victory gave them a moral push, helping them out of the depression, here after a defacto defeat, it is likely that the states will have some internal problems, might even go as far as strong discrimination to the German-Americans, who were/are the biggest single group in America and with the anlgo-saxons leading in the production. Considering that Eisenhower hated his name for beein too germansounding etc, the climate towards the German people there was not the best. In case of a cold war with them, things might acutlly get a bit ugly, which would also decrease the productivity of the Economy.
3. and most importantly, they no longer have all the technologie that they stole from Germany as in OTL, which was partialy responsible for the absolute economical dominance.
This also brings me to another point. The Rocket and space program will be far slower here then in OTL, unless you make some other PoD's here.
At least that is how I see it, unfortunatly I am not so familiar with this Timeline yet, so sorry if things are already decided otherwise, though would be nice if you could "catch me up" on these issues then.

An other question I would have is the state of South America, they were generaly very axis friendly and only in 43+, actually 44 did Brasil change that, Argentina remained German-friendly, so friendly that many conspiracy belivers belive that Hitler fled there. No, of course I dont belive that, but it just shows that the relations were quite good. I dont think that they will actually join the Axis, but remain freindly neutral and tradepartners, though who knows...
Would like to hear what you decided on that issue and why.

This is naturally true to a certain extent, but people are first and foremost bitter towards the failed Fascist regime. Just bear in mind that in a free society neighbouring totalitarian state propaganda tends to have same effect as in South Korea and West Germany.

The examples are not so good, since West Germany had an other spehere of infulence with France and Benelux and Skandinavia etc. so the Comunists and Allies were equally strogn represented in Europe, in fact the Allies were better represented since the western Europe was in theire hand, which was more industrialized, more educated, had a bigger history etc... Here South italy is all alone. Neibhours make a big effect, thats just how humanity is. If you make an experiment with 5 people in an elevator, where 4 suddenly turn to face a wal, so will usualy the 5th, for no other reason then to be "part of the group", not wanting to be alone is one of our most driving instincts, somthing that South Itlay will have to fight against
and Korea, well, North Koreal was kinda isolated doe to theire extremism, and are increadibly poor, this does not go for the Axis in this timeline, also Korea had Japain as a "friend".

but this is more of a spliting hair I guess, since I dont actuyll have much against South Itlay beeing in the Allies, even beein supportive of it, as long as in the game one gests to change that (if you know what I mean).

Yep, once the population flight from Neuropa to British Isles and especially to Southern Italy from RSI becomes an issue soon after the war.

How the hell are they going to flight to the British ilses??? South Itlay I can imagine, in fact I might even imagine that the axis will "let it happen" for a while to flush out some of the people that dont like the system, easier then to look for them individualy, of course while keeping the big brains under good observations. But how are they going to get the Britan? I can imagine that the ships and planes are not quite as frequently going there and even today it wouldnt be easy with all the controls. Are they going to swim there? Seriously, cant see anyone beeing able to go to Britan without the Axis knowing it. The only way might be via an independent Sweden, which I presume it remains, but it would be pritty hard. It was very hard for people to fligh from the Soviet Union, but now it would be much harder...


But this does bring me to a question I menat to ask, I hope I will not be too stereotipical, but what about the pro-axis people in Britan and especialy in the States, mostly southern. I dont know if they were too German friendly at any time, but could imagine that some of the people from the Souther states will not find the Axis ideology too far from their own, especialy since the time for the emancipation of the black population in America will take place (I guess), and the immigration in Britan.
Again, didnt meant to be stereotypical of the Souther States, hope everyone will understnad my point.


Greetings

Phönix wrote:Yes while the initial support will be higher then in OTL, I hardly think that the States will be able to keep it up as they did in OTL since the Economy of the States will not be so strong as in OTL after the war. I belive this primarily due to 3 reasons.
1. here the war lasted longer, hence more involvement of the US and since Germany here could actually fight back in the air after 44, the war will be much more costly.

This is true, yet the costs of rebuilding southern Italy are way, way lower than the total sum of historical Marshall Aid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Expenditures

Phönix wrote:2. In OTL the States suddenly gained a whole new market that they controlled, and could increase the production serveraly, also the victory gave them a moral push, helping them out of the depression, here after a defacto defeat, it is likely that the states will have some internal problems, might even go as far as strong discrimination to the German-Americans, who were/are the biggest single group in America and with the anlgo-saxons leading in the production. Considering that Eisenhower hated his name for beein too germansounding etc, the climate towards the German people there was not the best. In case of a cold war with them, things might acutlly get a bit ugly, which would also decrease the productivity of the Economy.

The economic situation is one of the main themes of this mod: what would US do in a situation where the historically vital Western European markets are no longer open for US business? Increased cooperation with Commonwealth countries is one answer, but only a partial solution. Therefore South America and the "emerging markets" of Asia and Africa suddenly gain much more importance than in OTL.

As for the outcome of WWII: They totally defeated the Japanese and Italians and saved Britain while keeping the continental US safe from attack - I would hardly call the outcome of WWII as a defeat from US point of view. And sure, the 1950s will be marked with paranoia and persecution towards alleged Nazi-symphatizers and to a lesser extent Communists as well. After all, Stalin´s decision to sign a truce in 1943 is viewed as a fatal backstab to the Allied war effort and one of the prime reasons continental Europe remains in German control. But by and large the American society (and especially the efficient propaganda apparatus) knew already in WWII to make a distiction between the Nazi regime and ordinary German people. The marginal few Americans who were lured by the Nazi calls to get "Heim aus Reich" have long since gone, and people of German descent have little reason to feel any sympathy towards New Europe.

Phönix wrote:3. and most importantly, they no longer have all the technologie that they stole from Germany as in OTL, which was partialy responsible for the absolute economical dominance.
This also brings me to another point. The Rocket and space program will be far slower here then in OTL, unless you make some other PoD's here.
At least that is how I see it, unfortunatly I am not so familiar with this Timeline yet, so sorry if things are already decided otherwise, though would be nice if you could "catch me up" on these issues then.

The importance of Operation Paperclip and technology transfer from occupied to Germany in general was mostly restricted to certain key fields of technology. While it is true that US rocketry program will be slower than in OTL, they did have brilliant rocket scientists of their own. Yet Germany will still score the first propaganda victories of space race by sending the first satellite to orbit, for example. Later on the larger budgets of NASA will allow them to start to catch up. As for space program in general, see the last chapter of this update:
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5890874&postcount=20

Phönix wrote:An other question I would have is the state of South America, they were generaly very axis friendly and only in 43+, actually 44 did Brasil change that, Argentina remained German-friendly, so friendly that many conspiracy belivers belive that Hitler fled there. No, of course I dont belive that, but it just shows that the relations were quite good. I dont think that they will actually join the Axis, but remain freindly neutral and tradepartners, though who knows...
Would like to hear what you decided on that issue and why.

There has been plenty of discussion of the position of South America in this timeline in Paradox forums. After the war the US economic blockade policy will naturally make it more difficult to re-establish the extensive pre-war economic contacts between Germany and South American countries, but surely there will be renewed contacts, especially with Argentina and later on Chile as well. Friendly tradepartners is the keyword here, the Caudillos know well that it is not wise to anger the United States. The postwar US governments will certainly jealously maintain the Monroe Doctrine and military interventions to Central America might be even more numerous than in OTL.

Phönix wrote:The examples are not so good, since West Germany had an other spehere of infulence with France and Benelux and Skandinavia etc. so the Comunists and Allies were equally strogn represented in Europe, in fact the Allies were better represented since the western Europe was in theire hand, which was more industrialized, more educated, had a bigger history etc... Here South italy is all alone. Neibhours make a big effect, thats just how humanity is....
but this is more of a spliting hair I guess, since I dont actuyll have much against South Itlay beeing in the Allies, even beein supportive of it, as long as in the game one gests to change that (if you know what I mean).

The HoI3 already has drift-modifier to simulate this effect. Moreover, Republic of Italy is not all alone in Mediterranean. Smaller states like Malta, Corsica and Cyprus are its closest Western-minded friendly neighbours while the Union Française is present right accross the ocean in Algeria and Tunis. I also think (haven´t made an update about it though so it´s not official yet) that post-war dealing with former Italian colonies might create states of Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Fezzan instead of unified Libya. Sure it´s a bit lonely to be the northernmost bastion of Free World in Mediterranean.

And yes, the point of the game is indeed give the player the freedom to try such things.

Phönix wrote:How the hell are they going to flight to the British ilses??? South Itlay I can imagine, in fact I might even imagine that the axis will "let it happen" for a while to flush out some of the people that dont like the system, easier then to look for them individualy, of course while keeping the big brains under good observations. But how are they going to get the Britan? I can imagine that the ships and planes are not quite as frequently going there and even today it wouldnt be easy with all the controls. Are they going to swim there? Seriously, cant see anyone beeing able to go to Britan without the Axis knowing it. The only way might be via an independent Sweden, which I presume it remains, but it would be pritty hard. It was very hard for people to fligh from the Soviet Union, but now it would be much harder...

Spain is still neutral at the end of WWII, and together with Sweden will form the key routes of early postwar refugee flow. And once the occupation of northern France finally ends in August 1949, there will be a renewed burst of activity in this field. We are not naturally talking about major population movement in the case of Channel, but when you consider the fact that people kept fleeing from Soviet Union and DDR up to the final days of of both countries it is still possible - and politically annoying for regimes of New Europe.

Phönix wrote:But this does bring me to a question I ment to ask, I hope I will not be too stereotipical, but what about the pro-axis people in Britan and especialy in the States, mostly southern. I dont know if they were too German friendly at any time, but could imagine that some of the people from the Souther states will not find the Axis ideology too far from their own, especialy since the time for the emancipation of the black population in America will take place (I guess), and the immigration in Britan.
Again, didnt meant to be stereotypical of the Souther States, hope everyone will understand my point.

Well, Britain suffered so badly in the war that the postwar support for successors of BUF and similar parties will certainly remain marginal - only after the first generations who have not lived through the Blitz have grown up there will be any chances for changes in this regard. As for the US, the continuation of racial segrecation will be considerable harder in world where Nazis still march in the streets of Berlin. On the other hand the same groups that opposed the civil rights movement in 1950s will certainly feel certain sympathy towards New Europe.

As for the outcome of WWII: They totally defeated the Japanese and Italians and saved Britain while keeping the continental US safe from attack - I would hardly call the outcome of WWII as a defeat from US point of view.

I have to dissagree with this one, since 1938 the US has been steadily building up for war, after 1940 with only one goal, elimination of the Nazi. They won against Japain, ok, but theire true enemy the Reich now controlls all of europe, the only contact that they had was operation Overlord, and they lost utterly. Think about Vietnam. They lost there and it was a traumatic expirience, not becouse the Vietnamese came to America and Annexed New yourk, , but becouse they failed to win. The states were never in any real danger, everyone knew that, so the war for the States was to help theire allies. And yes they saved Britan, but I think that Britan would have saved itself. Not in the afterwar years dont get me wrong. In the "cold war" they would have lost without the US economy, sure, but that will only show itself over time, after the cold war becomes an everyday term.
I dont know if you ever saw the, by now banned, propaganda movies of the States agaisnt Nazi-Germany. I dont mean Casablanca etc, by the way, I mena the Donald duck and Mickymouse cartoos. When you make movies like that and arent able to defeat them, then in the eyes of the world and your own, you've lost. I mean how much more could they loose against Germany? Its note like they could actualy ever land in Canada and conquer the States, like one does in HoI3.

But by and large the American society (and especially the efficient propaganda apparatus) knew already in WWII to make a distiction between the Nazi regime and ordinary German people. The marginal few Americans who were lured by the Nazi calls to get "Heim aus Reich" have long since gone, and people of German descent have little reason to feel any sympathy towards New Europe.

I didnt meant that suddenly the German-Americans will all turn Nazi, but a cold war tends to get ugly. I mean even in OTL, yeah it were the Comunists, noone in the Governement actually said they had to fught the Russian people, but the typical vilan was a russian if you know what I mean. So I think its safe to say that the States will be put to test at least.

The importance of Operation Paperclip and technology transfer from occupied to Germany in general was mostly restricted to certain key fields of technology

It only takes a few things to make from a leading nation, the leading nation. Add the naval strength of Britan to Nazi germany and then get somewhere safe


Btw, thanks for the link, but it goes all the way up to 1980, when does this scenario start? I thought somewhere like 1955 or so..

After the war the US economic blockade policy will naturally make it more difficult to re-establish the extensive pre-war economic contacts between Germany and South American countries,

What exactly do you mean blocade? DO you mean sinking merchant ships that go from Germany to South america?

btw, is Venezuela etc. pro Comunist here as wel? Might be super fun if they are. Then you would have Axis Allies and Commis in America, would give for some nice gameplay expiriece as the States.

The HoI3 already has drift-modifier to simulate this effect

Driftmode doesnt work if they are already in an allice, with I belive SouthItaly is.

And yes, the point of the game is indeed give the player the freedom to try such things.

nice

Spain is still neutral at the end of WWII, and together with Sweden will form the key routes of early postwar refugee flow. And once the occupation of northern France finally ends in August 1949, there will be a renewed burst of activity in this field. We are not naturally talking about major population movement in the case of Channel, but when you consider the fact that people kept fleeing from Soviet Union and DDR up to the final days of of both countries it is still possible - and politically annoying for regimes of New Europe.

I thought Spain joind New Europe..
but the other parts are right. I belive many will try to flee from France etc... but I cant stop thinking that Germany might just let them for a few years. Thin out the opposition you know.

Well, Britain suffered so badly in the war that the postwar support for successors of BUF and similar parties will certainly remain marginal - only after the first generations who have not lived through the Blitz have grown up there will be any chances for changes in this regard. As for the US, the continuation of racial segrecation will be considerable harder in world where Nazis still march in the streets of Berlin. On the other hand the same groups that opposed the civil rights movement in 1950s will certainly feel certain sympathy towards New Europe.

Aha intresting thanks. This give for a nice dillema thoug. If the civil rights movement is slowed down, so will be the attempts to bring Afrika in theire sphere of infulence, and it also brings up the question of South Africa. In this timeline it could be a decent power since the States as you already said will try to look for new markets, S. Afrika is perfect, with a sizeable white populatoin, diamants and alredy build up infrastructure, it is a perfect candidate to start into Africa, on the ofter hand, it might turn into some civil war shit with them ending on comunist side... have you already deceided what to do about them?










__________________________________

I wnated to ask about the progress of this mod, is somthing already done? I dont know too much about modding but I know the basics, so I could help out a bit, if needed/wanted. Though I dont have too much free time.