|
|
Post by Joseph Stalin on May 9, 2021 10:28:23 GMT
Romanian fuel? That was far insufficient to fuel the massive reich. In fact in the year of 1944 german production reached a peak but they didnt had fuel at all. As far as I remember reich used a million horses for transportation in 1941 But Germany used railway more and they have coal and iron, so He knew that attacking Germany was not a good idea when army performed poorly against Finland. Yeah winter war seems like an indecisive little war but it actually changed history. Hitler thought that if Soviets couldnt crush the tiny finland then there was no way they could have resisted against the onslaught. I dont know if you ever watched this record but it shows a unique voice record of hitler talking to mannerheim in finland. |
|
Hsueh Yueh
Captain
Yo! It's Hsueh-Yueh here, formerly known as Ismet Inonu. On a hiatus right now.
Posts: 125
|
Post by Hsueh Yueh on May 12, 2021 1:12:28 GMT
 Theoretical Breakup of North America. I would like to see how you think this could have happened and what would happen next. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2021 4:31:17 GMT
What do you think would have happened if Britain intervened on Confederacy's side in Civil War.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on May 12, 2021 6:32:55 GMT
Theoretical Breakup of North America. I would like to see how you think this could have happened and what would happen next. Now that would offend Don Quixote de la Mancha  I think it could be that they didn't break up. It could be America IF they hadn't come together and formed the "United States of America". The confederacy would have then broken up later and would have continued. |
|
|
|
Post by Don Quixote de la Mancha on May 12, 2021 11:16:15 GMT
What do you think would have happened if Britain intervened on Confederacy's side in Civil War. Easy, Confederate "victory" or at least they get to stay independant. The Civil War would continue but there would be invasions from Canada, the Confederacy (canadian one) would be built up much more stronger and wouldn't be the 'little brother' of the U.S but the other way around. The purchase of Alaska would be by Canada or the Brits or whatever and the U.S would have to cede land in the Pacific Coast plus parts of the Great Lakes. U.S-British relations would be hurt and the planning of a next war starts on both sides. The Union spirals into the same 'shame' as the germans after ww1 and start being even more autocratic. One good side is that dependant on when the brits intervene, Lincoln might still be alive. The Confederacy would be what it always was, a slave society with a good chunk of their population not even considered human beings. Mexico might want it's territories back from the bruised Union and the Confederacy might want expand so I think there would be a few follow up wars against the Union. The Union would end up much like Canada today, underindustrialized, weak diplomatically and more or less unimportant. THe CSA would have this only more so, racism would be so bad and this is going too far, to close up, Canada would probably become a pseudo U.S, a strong country asserting their dominance over other countries. |
|
Hsueh Yueh
Captain
Yo! It's Hsueh-Yueh here, formerly known as Ismet Inonu. On a hiatus right now.
Posts: 125
|
Post by Hsueh Yueh on May 12, 2021 13:34:02 GMT
 Theoretical Axis victory and then Cold War, except this time it's Germany/Italy/Spain vs Japan/India/China. No, that's not the ROC, it's a collaborationist state. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on May 13, 2021 5:57:05 GMT
Ooo! That looks like an interesting scenario. How would this one play out according to you Hsueh Yueh? |
|
Hsueh Yueh
Captain
Yo! It's Hsueh-Yueh here, formerly known as Ismet Inonu. On a hiatus right now.
Posts: 125
|
Post by Hsueh Yueh on May 13, 2021 13:19:37 GMT
1. Hitler invades Britain right after France is defeated. RAF and Royal Navy is taken care of by the Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine.
2. Hitler then focuses on the USSR, invading it in Spring 1941, focusing on Moscow.
3. After Moscow falls, all Hitler needs to do it hold it.
4. Leningrad falls because the Soviets can't send supplies from Lake Ladoga anymore.
5. Germans see Chuikov's strategies at Stalingrad before they are fully carried out and defeat him.
If somehow the invasion fails, Hitler can call on Japan to invade instead of doing Pearl Harbor.
If Stalingrad is taken, Japan will join in anyway.
Japan has it's oil reserves that will last 2 years.
6. Soviets are unable to handle a two front war, Stalin either shoots himself, gets captured, or flees into exile.
7. Japan does Pearl Harbor because it's still not getting any oil.
8. Nazis perfect Atomic Bomb.
9. D.C and New York City is nuked. (from a Japanese aircraft carrier)
10. FDR dies, US government too
11. US Surrenders
12. Cold War begins after puppet governments are setup. (between western axis powers and eastern axis powers)
|
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Stalin on May 13, 2021 17:02:58 GMT
1. Hitler invades Britain right after France is defeated. RAF and Royal Navy is taken care of by the Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine. 2. Hitler then focuses on the USSR, invading it in Spring 1941, focusing on Moscow. 3. After Moscow falls, all Hitler needs to do it hold it. 4. Leningrad falls because the Soviets can't send supplies from Lake Ladoga anymore. 5. Germans see Chuikov's strategies at Stalingrad before they are fully carried out and defeat him. If somehow the invasion fails, Hitler can call on Japan to invade instead of doing Pearl Harbor. If Stalingrad is taken, Japan will join in anyway. Japan has it's oil reserves that will last 2 years. 6. Soviets are unable to handle a two front war, Stalin either shoots himself, gets captured, or flees into exile. 7. Japan does Pearl Harbor because it's still not getting any oil. 8. Nazis perfect Atomic Bomb. 9. D.C and New York City is nuked. (from a Japanese aircraft carrier) 10. FDR dies, US government too 11. US Surrenders 12. Cold War begins after puppet governments are setup. (between western axis powers and eastern axis powers) What about the partisan movements in USSR, Yugoslavia, Poland? |
|
Hsueh Yueh
Captain
Yo! It's Hsueh-Yueh here, formerly known as Ismet Inonu. On a hiatus right now.
Posts: 125
|
Post by Hsueh Yueh on May 13, 2021 17:29:18 GMT
1. Hitler invades Britain right after France is defeated. RAF and Royal Navy is taken care of by the Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine. 2. Hitler then focuses on the USSR, invading it in Spring 1941, focusing on Moscow. 3. After Moscow falls, all Hitler needs to do it hold it. 4. Leningrad falls because the Soviets can't send supplies from Lake Ladoga anymore. 5. Germans see Chuikov's strategies at Stalingrad before they are fully carried out and defeat him. If somehow the invasion fails, Hitler can call on Japan to invade instead of doing Pearl Harbor. If Stalingrad is taken, Japan will join in anyway. Japan has it's oil reserves that will last 2 years. 6. Soviets are unable to handle a two front war, Stalin either shoots himself, gets captured, or flees into exile. 7. Japan does Pearl Harbor because it's still not getting any oil. 8. Nazis perfect Atomic Bomb. 9. D.C and New York City is nuked. (from a Japanese aircraft carrier) 10. FDR dies, US government too 11. US Surrenders 12. Cold War begins after puppet governments are setup. (between western axis powers and eastern axis powers) What about the partisan movements in USSR, Yugoslavia, Poland? They would be easily crushed by the Nazis or collaborationist governments. (Such as the Ustashe) |
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Stalin on May 13, 2021 18:36:01 GMT
What about the partisan movements in USSR, Yugoslavia, Poland? They would be easily crushed by the Nazis or collaborationist governments. (Such as the Ustashe) Germany had a population of 80 million. USSR had a population of 200 million. You must add populations of Yugoslavia(16 m.), Poland(35 m.)Im more dedicated to these 3 countries because they had the most tenacious resistance and collaboration was very low plus they were the only non-aryan countries the axis-europe invaded. Nazis didnt started the war to just occupy and govern these countries. Their ultimate goal was to exterminate everyone except aryans and people knew this. Controlling a population 3-4X higher than you is an impossible thing. Real life is not a video game and thats why an axis victory was unrealistic. In a moment of weakness or an economic crisis everyone would have revolted, especially against japan whose ground forces were very weak. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on May 14, 2021 5:58:20 GMT
They would be easily crushed by the Nazis or collaborationist governments. (Such as the Ustashe) Germany had a population of 80 million. USSR had a population of 200 million. You must add populations of Yugoslavia(16 m.), Poland(35 m.)Im more dedicated to these 3 countries because they had the most tenacious resistance and collaboration was very low plus they were the only non-aryan countries the axis-europe invaded. Nazis didnt started the war to just occupy and govern these countries. Their ultimate goal was to exterminate everyone except aryans and people knew this. Controlling a population 3-4X higher than you is an impossible thing. Real life is not a video game and thats why an axis victory was unrealistic. In a moment of weakness or an economic crisis everyone would have revolted, especially against japan whose ground forces were very weak. Why not it is possible to handle such a big empire? Remember the British Empire? It ruled India, either by hook or by crook. India constituted roughly 20% of the world population when she got independence. UK has very less population than India when they ruled it. And all this excluding the other territories - African colonies, Australia, Canada, which would be... I don't know maybe some 20 times her population? And another point is that they were all very distant colonies - Canada, Australia even India for that matter, whereas in this scenario, Germany is near to USSR, Poland and Yugoslavia. I believe that an axis victory was not totally impossible. If USSR fell, that would have spelled doom for the allies. And I actually believe they had a very good chance. |
|
|
|
Post by Pietro Badoglio on May 14, 2021 6:09:53 GMT
Germany had a population of 80 million. USSR had a population of 200 million. You must add populations of Yugoslavia(16 m.), Poland(35 m.)Im more dedicated to these 3 countries because they had the most tenacious resistance and collaboration was very low plus they were the only non-aryan countries the axis-europe invaded. Nazis didnt started the war to just occupy and govern these countries. Their ultimate goal was to exterminate everyone except aryans and people knew this. Controlling a population 3-4X higher than you is an impossible thing. Real life is not a video game and thats why an axis victory was unrealistic. In a moment of weakness or an economic crisis everyone would have revolted, especially against japan whose ground forces were very weak. Why not it is possible to handle such a big empire? Remember the British Empire? It ruled India, either by hook or by crook. India constituted roughly 20% of the world population when she got independence. UK has very less population than India when they ruled it. And all this excluding the other territories - African colonies, Australia, Canada, which would be... I don't know maybe some 20 times her population? And another point is that they were all very distant colonies - Canada, Australia even India for that matter, whereas in this scenario, Germany is near to USSR, Poland and Yugoslavia. I believe that an axis victory was not totally impossible. If USSR fell, that would have spelled doom for the allies. And I actually believe they had a very good chance. British Rule was quite popular in India or atleast they didn't opposed the 'Raj' unlike the partisans in Yugoslavia and Ukraine did. Settlers Canada, Australia, South Africa, Newfoundland and New Zealand were British so why would they oppose Britain. Instead many were proud imperial nationalists. In case of Africa, it wasn't a complete control and parts of British Africa didn't even knew that they were part of Britain. Colonial control was mostly concentrated in mineral rich areas or cities. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on May 14, 2021 6:12:49 GMT
Why not it is possible to handle such a big empire? Remember the British Empire? It ruled India, either by hook or by crook. India constituted roughly 20% of the world population when she got independence. UK has very less population than India when they ruled it. And all this excluding the other territories - African colonies, Australia, Canada, which would be... I don't know maybe some 20 times her population? And another point is that they were all very distant colonies - Canada, Australia even India for that matter, whereas in this scenario, Germany is near to USSR, Poland and Yugoslavia. I believe that an axis victory was not totally impossible. If USSR fell, that would have spelled doom for the allies. And I actually believe they had a very good chance. British Rule was quite popular in India or atleast they didn't opposed the 'Raj' unlike the partisans in Yugoslavia and Ukraine did. Settlers Canada, Australia, South Africa, Newfoundland and New Zealand were British so why would they oppose Britain. Instead many were proud imperial nationalists. In case of Africa, it wasn't a complete control and parts of British Africa didn't even knew that they were part of Britain. Colonial control was mostly concentrated in mineral rich areas or cities. They did oppose the British Raj. Not being harsh but, on what accounts can you say they did not? |
|
|
|
Post by Pietro Badoglio on May 14, 2021 6:15:11 GMT
British Rule was quite popular in India or atleast they didn't opposed the 'Raj' unlike the partisans in Yugoslavia and Ukraine did. Settlers Canada, Australia, South Africa, Newfoundland and New Zealand were British so why would they oppose Britain. Instead many were proud imperial nationalists. In case of Africa, it wasn't a complete control and parts of British Africa didn't even knew that they were part of Britain. Colonial control was mostly concentrated in mineral rich areas or cities. They did oppose the British Raj. Not being harsh but, on what accounts can you say they did not? Like there were no large scale violent revolts against direct crown rule. |
|
