Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel

[Swissempire]

I was on the grassy knoll in Dallas.

Back on topic. Can someone tell me something important that happened in Africa in the mid 1990's?

.......really? Is that REALLY a question? Honestly. Like seriously? Come on now, this is serious business, did that question just get asked?

Off the top of my head umm...

-Rwandan Genocide
-United States invading Somalia
-First Congolese War(you know, the bloodiest War in history other than WW2)
-Ebola Outbreaks
-Shitload of Coups, Counter Coups, Revolutions
-Massacres in the Southern Sudan
-Hmm...AIDS?

That's all without any outside information at my fingertips. A quick Wikipedia search should suffice.

But like honestly, umm... Africa is this big landmass called a Continent, filled with things we call Countries and inhabited things called People. Stuff tends to happen there.

 

[jeps]

me something important that happened in Africa in the mid 1990's?


93 - A stable democracy is formed in Africa! (Ghana, Fourth Republic)

All members of the Zambia national football team lose their lives in a plane crash

Eritrea gains independence from Ethiopia.

A large scale battle erupts between U.S. forces and local militia in Mogadishu, Somalia

the first meeting of an official government body in South Africa with black members

1994

Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana and Burundi President Cyprien Ntaryamira die when a missile shoots down their jet near Kigali, Rwanda

Rwandan Genocide begins in Kigali, Rwanda.

South Africa holds its first fully multiracial elections.

The Angolan government and UNITA rebels sign the Lusaka Protocol.

and so on...

 

[Symphony D.]

-United States invading Somalia

Huh, interesting. I don't recall anything about that. I seem to remember a UN Humanitarian mission where warlords kept stealing food shipments and killing soldiers guarding them, and then some policing action to apprehend those involved.

Still, what choice did he have? Germany was already set back considerably and insanely reckless actions were needed if it were to

He could have waited on his physicists and engineers to develop the weapons that could have won him the war, not meddled in every element of their design processes, and not brashly assumed Western democracies would never fight no matter what he did, provoke a war in say, 1941, when he was prepared instead, and quite possibly have won.

 

[Swissempire]

Huh, interesting. I don't recall anything about that. I seem to remember a UN Humanitarian mission where warlords kept stealing food shipments and killing soldiers guarding them, and then some policing action to apprehend those involved.

Bah, you know what i mean

 

[silver 2039]

The idea that you can dismiss every idea the book brings up without actually reading the ideas OR the book is laughable

Sorry but the British Empire shipping 2 million people to India, the French establishing themsleves in Algeria, and the Russians in Central Asia following some satanic serpent cult is insane, irrational, and foolish no matter how you look at it. Oh and not to mention Japan taking over all of China.

 

[Luckymoose]

Sorry but the British Empire shipping 2 million people to India, the French establishing themsleves in Algeria, and the Russians in Central Asia following some satanic serpent cult is insane, irrational, and foolish no matter how you look at it. Oh and not to mention Japan taking over all of China.

I've seen that before. NES2 VIb.

 

[Symphony D.]

I've seen that before. NES2 VIb.

More to the point, an entirely possible and likely outcome in WWII had the Japanese not bothered attacking the Allies.

 

[Luckymoose]

More to the point, an entirely possible and likely outcome in WWII had the Japanese not bothered attacking the Allies.

The entirety of China? Not just the coastal area?

 

[Disenfrancised]

He could have waited on his physicists and engineers to develop the weapons that could have won him the war, not meddled in every element of their design processes, and not brashly assumed Western democracies would never fight no matter what he did, provoke a war in say, 1941, when he was prepared instead, and quite possibly have won.

Course by then the loans repayments might have started kicking in and damaging Germanies rebuilt economy, the soviets would have completed the post-purge reorganization and backstabbed him as soon as he went west, the Westerners would have had new weaponry too and maybe better preparedness if germanies army is growing (depends on how stupid the french are of course)...

@Japan conquering China if they didn't attack the allies; IMHO yes, if they also found someone to fufill their fuel and resource requirements (though that would be rather easy with a Netherlands threatened by germany and needing cash )

 

[silver 2039]

They would never have been able to control it directly without puppet states of some sort.

 

[Symphony D.]

Course by then the loans repayments might have started kicking in and damaging Germanies rebuilt economy, the soviets would have completed the post-purge reorganization and backstabbed him as soon as he went west, the Westerners would have had new weaponry too and maybe better preparedness if germanies army is growing (depends on how stupid the french are of course)...

1) What on Earth makes you think he'd pay them? They wouldn't go to war over that, given he did stuff like, oh, reoccupy the Sudetenland, and re-militarized, and generally pissed all over the Versailles Treaty,
2) You genuinely think Stalin would cease purging people if there wasn't a war that suddenly made them necessary?
3) So if a prepared France with the BEF present lost to a relatively unprepared Germany that had to redeploy forces from Poland (and spent months advertising the fact) in 43 days, you're assuming against a vastly better prepared force with surprise advantage it will last longer, giving the Soviets time to attack? Assuming the Germans don't immediately just go after the Soviets anyway, assuming Stalin doesn't hit Poland first and they're at war with him...
4) Western militaries at the time sucked at innovation, plain and simple. They weren't worth anything until well into the war. If Germany is rolling into France with Panzer III, IV, and V instead of I and II and soldiers all brandishing the Sturmgewehr, and ME-262s giving air support, the Allies lose, the end, because France with two more years is France continuing to believe in the invincibility of the Maginot Line for two more years, and the Battle of Britain fought by props vs. jets is going to go pretty badly when the only thing that kept the RAF from crumbling OTL was Hitler's idiotic switch from bombing their facilities to bombing population centers--the cause of which, a raid on Berlin, probably couldn't have been conducted had the Germans had better radar and said jets to run interception.

They would never have been able to control it directly without puppet states of some sort.

For the supposed master of genocide and large-scale cruelty you're really not putting that noggin to use terribly well here. Ever read 1984? Remember the Proles? You can't rise up really well when you've got sticks and sharp rocks and they've got machine guns and bombers, even if there are almost a billion of you.

There were no truly large-scale rebellions behind Japanese lines when the Communists and KMT forces were fighting out in the countryside. Why would there be large-scale rebellions when there was no possible relief at all? Furthermore the Japanese had no problem deploying biological and chemical weapons in the region (and had by the end of the war stockpiled enough to kill every human on the planet several times over by weight); they could've held it easily, even if it wasn't going to be terribly useful as a result (due to most everyone being dead). And they probably would've been fine with just repopulating the area with Japanese once all the Chinese were taken care of. High quality lebensraum! Getting to that point would've been the hard part.

 

[das]

He could have waited on his physicists and engineers to develop the weapons that could have won him the war, not meddled in every element of their design processes, and not brashly assumed Western democracies would never fight no matter what he did, provoke a war in say, 1941, when he was prepared instead, and quite possibly have won.

Time was against Germany, though. It's just as brash to assume that they wouldn't eventually launch a preemptive attack, and/or ally with Stalin.

2) You genuinely think Stalin would cease purging people if there wasn't a war that suddenly made them necessary?

Except that he brought back Rokossovsky in 1940, for example. And a major military reorganisation was in full swing; they even abolished the comissars.

They would never have been able to control it directly without puppet states of some sort.

Yes, and the Japanese knew as much, which is why they DID have a puppet state. See Wang Jingwei.

 

[Symphony D.]

Except that he brought back Rokossovsky in 1940, for example. And a major military reorganisation was in full swing; they even abolished the comissars.

Uh huh, and if Germany decides to wait until 1941, as I suggested, and they happen to attack the Soviet Union--the most likely target--first, that will happen to coincide with exactly when they attacked OTL and they came rather quite close to winning then, now didn't they? Imagine if they had some scalar multiple more troops, better organization and gear, and hadn't just switched their forces all over the map. If they wait longer, the USSR will be somewhat better organized, yes, but Germany will be much stronger too. The whole problem for the Germans was production ratios. If they had enough time to build up sufficient stockpiles of their high-tech gear to actually win the war instead of just milking everything they had, they could have won despite marginally better prepared foes.

The Allies had made it fairly clear they were willing to sit with their thumbs up their asses unless Germany did something rather rash, like... invade Poland! Anyone sensible would have acknowledged their military and technological superiority, capitalized on it, and waited a little bit until instead of a strong advantage it was an overwhelming one. History proves, of course, that Hitler was anything but sensible, but that's beyond the point.

 

[Kal'thzar]

I thought the economic situation was too weak for that. I.e. it would collapse, simply pouring money into the Military wasn't viable for such a long term. Specially with maintaining such a vast amount of troops and tech, whilst getting no return on it.

(I have however left my economic books at home :/)

 

[Symphony D.]

I thought the economic situation was too weak for that. I.e. it would collapse, simply pouring money into the Military wasn't viable for such a long term. Specially with maintaining such a vast amount of troops and tech, whilst getting no return on it.

(I have however left my economic books at home :/)

You mean ignoring the fact that much of the German economy was built on manufacturing industries, most of those had been nationalized, most of them could easily be directed to a war effort, most of them had been rebuilt with a war effort specifically in mind, and most of them continued to operate and power the German war machine for six years under intense wartime demand and Allied bombing as it was?

Yeah, aside from that, it might have been a bit stressful on the economy. You know, in the same way that only massive WWII production output finally pulled the American economy out of the toilet.

In fact, America all by itself makes a wonderful counterpoint to this entire idea, having spent vast amounts on troops and tech for 42 years straight, and having held between 25% and 51% of global GDP expenditure on the military for somewhere around 62 years straight, even if the circumstances and mechanics of it are entirely different. Having waited for an additional 2 to 5 years for Germany would have been piddly and insignificant in my estimation (especially as that's not long term; anything the size of an American Presidential term should never, ever, ever be called "long term" on a national scale)--the only thing it would have tried would have been Hitler's patience.

 

[Kal'thzar]

yes I understand the Kenysean theory behind it(However due to the nature of the spending of the Nazis (for war material etc) the multiplyer effect was decreased.

But anyway The Americans maxed out their Expenditure as a percentage of their own GDP in 1944 at 34%, today its only 3.7% of its GDP. This current level of expenditure is NOT a strain.


now Germany on the other hand:

Around 1936 when explicit plans for war began. Government spending increased dramatically, while increases in government revenue did not keep up. By FY 38-39, the last fiscal year before the war, expenditure exceeded revenue by 86% and total debt load exceeded annual revenue by 136%. Government spending reached 33.5% of GNP, up from 19% in 1933. By FY 38-39, rearmament accounted for 46% of German government spending. This all contributed to a substantial debt load, financed by predominantly by internal borrowing rather than foreign borrowing. Germany's trade agreements were deliberately restricted to the import of critical goods, paid for primarily by bilateral barter agreements. It was explicit Nazi policy to isolate the German economy from the rest of the world, trading only when they had no alternative way to obtain what they needed.

This is clearly not sustainable. And new resources are not forthcoming as the Nazis have effectivly isolated themselves from the world markets, so its hard to Grow the economy to any significant degree unlike a nation like Britian (or indeed America). Lastly removing these restrictions would cause a significant shock to the economy of Germany.

Now say they plan to take it a bit slower and the military expenditure isn't so rapidly brought up in 1936, well first we have the problem that indeed its unlikly that the concentration of material can be pushed much higher (as your effectivly spreading the same amount over a longer period). Lastly the German Economy; where roughly a third is composed of goverment spending and the goverments expenditure is roughly double what its income is....well this debt is a large problem, cuts will HAVE to be made by the early 40's and the only viable place is Military expenditure, as otherwise non-armanant spending would have to drop to 0, an impossibilty.

 

[Symphony D.]

Now say they plan to take it a bit slower and the military expenditure isn't so rapidly brought up in 1936, well first we have the problem that indeed its unlikly that the concentration of material can be pushed much higher (as your effectivly spreading the same amount over a longer period). Lastly the German Economy; where roughly a third is composed of goverment spending and the goverments expenditure is roughly double what its income is....well this debt is a large problem, cuts will HAVE to be made by the early 40's and the only viable place is Military expenditure, as otherwise non-armanant spending would have to drop to 0, an impossibilty.

Unfortunately for this plan Germany is not a market economy but a brutal dictatorship with trappings of Socialism, much like a certain other country that also happens to have isolated itself from the global economy and maintains an incredibly large (if by modern standards technologically backwards) military for its size: North Korea.

North Korea serves as a splendid example that with absolute centralized control, propaganda, and the installment of a siege mentality into the populace (all well within the capabilities of Nazi Germany) that the populace can be reduced to destitution or worse in the pursuit of military capability in the long term (50+ years). North Korea is by no means an economic powerhouse and in the long term its plan has lead to backwards progress and stagnation, however in the short term, large-scale military-industrial projects directed by a central authority (see: Soviet programs to catch up with the West post-WWII) and the buildup of military forces to launch an invasion is sustainable. The strain imposed by this is detrimental in the long run but this envisioned scenario does not have Germany maintaining it indefinitely, but for a relatively short period of time compared to their overall buildup period OTL (counting from about 1933 to 1945; 12 years--1 to 2 years is obviously less than 20% of that time period, and even 3 or 4 years is only 25% and 33% respectively).

I maintain that this sort of delay would not cause the German economy to mysteriously and instantaneously reach some sort of breaking point particularly when the government was fully well capable of sacrificing the good of its people for the sake of rearmament and those people were at the time deluded enough by said government to go along with it.

 

[Kal'thzar]

Your right the German economy was a planned private economy, in contrast to the Planned public economies of the Communist nations and the market private economies of Britian/USA etc.

It is the Private use of the word that implies usage of money as a price determiner, and the planning of the Nazi economy was fairly loosely controlled until the shift to War Economy During the war. In general the co-operations were given great lee-way and the government only intervened when it had to enforce its state objectives.


To change to the planned public model will introduce another shock into the already strained economy (and its been under strain for a while, since the end of WWI really). Not to mention destroying its bilateral agreements with a great deal of countries, and of course removing a whole host of political figures.

And you really need to address how the germans are going to continue to procure the required resources.

 

[Symphony D.]

To change to the planned public model will introduce another shock into the already strained economy (and its been under strain for a while, since the end of WWI really). Not to mention destroying its bilateral agreements with a great deal of countries, and of course removing a whole host of political figures.

You don't need to do so. You impose all the penalties required to get the populace to knuckle-under while you're building up as necessary, such as wartime rationing. They're both used to it given an extended economic downturn, willing to accept it for patriotic and security reasons, and have no recourse against it since all democratic institutions have been crushed, and the military is firmly in your pocket (since you're the one building them up so much). German industry may have remained private but it ultimately answered to the government, and the social agenda was public. You compromise as much of your social program as needed to subsidize the armaments industry and utilize your population as either cheap or free labor to bolster their costs. Their quality of life goes down but they fervently believe in you because you're making Germany strong and you only have to wait a few more years until you prove your correctness with endless military victories.

This is a volatile and ultimately unbalanced equation but you can continue to keep your ideological and happenstance allies despite your rather poor economic situation simply by offering them things they don't have, like weapons (if possible, the ones you're phasing out with new ones, otherwise, export versions of what you're making), military assistance (doctrines, training, and so on), and continued assurances of military cooperation.

As I repeatedly keep saying, you only need to maintain it for a handful of years to capitalize upon initial investments and make your strikes once you're fully prepared. It's a question of how much the people are willing to take (and they are historically proven to have been willing to take a lot) and how talented your administration is (and that was historically proven to have been efficient if misguided). I do not see it as impossible to pull off for a relatively short period of time by any standards at all.

And you really need to address how the germans are going to continue to procure the required resources.

Bilateral trade with Italy, Spain, Japan, and the Soviet Union (don't forget the non-aggression pact and the fact Germany was training and rebuilding a lot of its initial force within Soviet territory to avoid Allied eyes) should do quite nicely for most plausible needs, excepting probably rubber, and the Germans wound up making synthetic stuff anyway. The latter particularly so--even if Stalin was planning to eventually attack Hitler (and vice versa) they conveniently needed each other at the time.

 

[Kal'thzar]

yes but I don't think they have that handfull of years to do it. They had already maxmised employment, usage of resources and so on and so forth, and they still utilised price as a determiner for goods, their at the top of a curve; they need war to continue to fund this; by taking resources and material that Germany did NOT have and continue to fund their military.

But all this debt that they procured, especially the massive amount of bonds was coming due in 1939 and every year thereafter. And No they can't actually export their weapons because they've isolated themselves from the world markets, hence their dependence on bilateral agreements. Breaking these down and exposing themselves to the market will not go well because the Nazi economy is in such a bad state (an unsustainable state) and their credit is worthless.