Mîtiu Ioan
Deity
US and probably UK would support Germany.
But for France ... hmmm ... I'm not so sure !!
Regards
-
Our friends from AlphaCentauri2.info are in need of technical assistance. If you have experience with the LAMP stack and some hours to spare, please help them out and post here.
What if instead we has a Coldwar with the Nazis?
- Thread starter President Clark
- Start date
US and probably UK would support Germany.
But for France ... hmmm ... I'm not so sure !!
Regards
knowltok2
Deity
I think in Panda's case the Germans would have soundly beaten the Russians in Poland somewhere and then driven them back to the point that the Communists were overthrown.
I think a lot of credit of Soviet fighting ability against the Germans belongs in the fact that they were invaded and brutalized. Remove that element, and the will to sustain the horendous casualties the Germans would have inflicted would have disappeared.
I doubt that the west would have gotten involved except maybe in sending supplies to Germany if Hitler could turn the anti communism to his advantage.
I think in the end you would have had a defeated (not conquered) Russia, and a Germany that was in a class of its own in Europe (more-so than it already was).
What happens next depends a lot on what England and France have been doing, What Japan and the US are doing, and how long the Soviets lasted before collapsing.
Just my theories though.
I think a lot of credit of Soviet fighting ability against the Germans belongs in the fact that they were invaded and brutalized. Remove that element, and the will to sustain the horendous casualties the Germans would have inflicted would have disappeared.
I doubt that the west would have gotten involved except maybe in sending supplies to Germany if Hitler could turn the anti communism to his advantage.
I think in the end you would have had a defeated (not conquered) Russia, and a Germany that was in a class of its own in Europe (more-so than it already was).
What happens next depends a lot on what England and France have been doing, What Japan and the US are doing, and how long the Soviets lasted before collapsing.
Just my theories though.
Aphex_Twin
Evergreen
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,474
The Germans were actually behind on technology and had fewer troops than the allies. For instance, the British and the French had around 5000 - 6000 tanks while the Germans had half that number. Also out of those two thirds were no more than armored machine gun platforms.
What the Germans had were excellent tactics employed by a new breed of officers.
The Germans eventually cought up on technology, but the Allies brought up some tacticians of their own and dismissed the old generals of the World War One. This, combined with numerical superiority (especially on the Russian side) is what really tipped the ballance.
Rockets and jet engines came too late to make any difference.
errrrrr..........french tanks.............they were not state of the art where they? germany in WW2 was not about size or numbers, it was about having the best tanks and very goo trained soldiers w/ good techniques, and the germans were NOT behind in technology, at least in the military sense, they tanks were the best, their planes were the best (for the most part in the new age ones) and they had top scientiests, so i dont agree w/ u. rockets and jet engines were too late to make a difference, but again look at the title of the thread, a cold war.
altought i have to agree w/ the allied numerical superiority......but remember that a highly trained and equiped SS panzer division can take down 5 conscrip soviet ones.
altought i have to agree w/ the allied numerical superiority......but remember that a highly trained and equiped SS panzer division can take down 5 conscrip soviet ones.
This is in response to Germany,and the U.S's nuclear readiness during WW2.I read (I think in a People's Almanac) that allied spies had found documents showing that the Nazi's had a nuclear program,but it was way behind the United States nuclear program.
yeah, mostly hitlers fault, but i dont think a nation would go for a nuclear program if there wasnt a ww2 until later around teh 50s or 60s, if there had been o ww2 who knows the nazis are first on space and the moon w/ top rocket tech
There is a sci fi novel written in 1993 by Robert Harris called Fatherland (link to film overview here) about an alternate history whereby the Anglo-American invasion at Normandy in 1944 failed, Britain has been overrun (with Churchill escaping by skin of teeth to Canada), and the Soviets had been soundly defeated and Moscow occupied - although Stalin still decades later is leading guerilla warfare activity deep in Siberia against the occupying Germans. The U.S., while failing at Normandy, has succeeded in defeating Japan, so both the U.S. and Nazi-occupied Europe are locked in a Cold War of sorts for a decade (+) after the war ended. The story begins with U.S. President Joseph Kennedy (yes, I wrote Joseph, meaning JFK's ambitious father) making a historic first visit to Nazi Europe for a U.S. President (or any American) since the war in 1964 as a diplomatic attempt to mend fences.
I won't ruin the story for you by spilling the plot line but an interesting aspect of his alternate history that Harris explores is technology: Since the war ended differently ands there were different economic and political goals than those we know in the real world at that time, technology develops differently - more slowly. Instead of the late 1940s, the first mass-produced televisions are just beginning to be sold in early 1960s America, for instance. The U.S.-Soviet Cold War did create a powerful impetus for technological development that has benefitted humanity immensely, if only they hadn't bothered to devlop all those ICBMs. Since atomic warfare was far more limited and less threatening in Harris' novel, it isn't the spur for research and development that it was in the real Cold War.
I won't ruin the story for you by spilling the plot line but an interesting aspect of his alternate history that Harris explores is technology: Since the war ended differently ands there were different economic and political goals than those we know in the real world at that time, technology develops differently - more slowly. Instead of the late 1940s, the first mass-produced televisions are just beginning to be sold in early 1960s America, for instance. The U.S.-Soviet Cold War did create a powerful impetus for technological development that has benefitted humanity immensely, if only they hadn't bothered to devlop all those ICBMs. Since atomic warfare was far more limited and less threatening in Harris' novel, it isn't the spur for research and development that it was in the real Cold War.
A_Bashkuev
King
There is very funny & weird Len Deighton' novel "SS-GB" about one very straight & honest english guy who was used to be Scotland Yard superior (he was used to catch criminals - any criminals). When Hitler invade England in 1940 & got her in no-time - germans needed some guy for catching criminals (every country & every regime had them!). Well, hero of this novel was - half-German by blood & he decided that... every country & every regime must catch burglars, muggers, rapists... Then he... He just kept his former post - no more, no less. Is it a crime - to be head of Scotland Yard for dedicated criminal-catcher, eh?
One little catch - his post has very weird name, - Douuglas Archer (hero' name) is - "Gruppenfuhrer von Gross Britain Shutz Staffel Abteilung" now.
His main duty is catching... "some dedicated criminals & bandits who opposed german military". Very strange & weird duty for very honest & straight Englishman indeed...
Well, there isn't any technological or sci-fi hanky-panky stuff here. It's just a... let's say - moral story. Must honest Englishman cooperate with Nazi? Must he catch Britain resistors? Must he catch resistors with dedicated criminal past? Dedicated criminal future? Dedicated muggers & rapists? Where is the thin line between real criminals & "criminals" in Nazi meaning? Questions, questions, questions...
By the way, main line plot in this story began in the moment when unknown visitor came for our hero & asked him... to help "real Britains" to free English King who get into German high security prison in 1940 summer. Most thrilling story with very nasty twists in sujet...
Well, let's chuck it out - pls, answer are you sure that USA could make a truce with Hitler & stay "moral enough" in own eyes? It is the most puzzling question - not question about technology achevments at all... (I heard somebody told that Roosevelt wasn't moral enough making alliance with Stalin, was he?)
One little catch - his post has very weird name, - Douuglas Archer (hero' name) is - "Gruppenfuhrer von Gross Britain Shutz Staffel Abteilung" now.
His main duty is catching... "some dedicated criminals & bandits who opposed german military". Very strange & weird duty for very honest & straight Englishman indeed...
Well, there isn't any technological or sci-fi hanky-panky stuff here. It's just a... let's say - moral story. Must honest Englishman cooperate with Nazi? Must he catch Britain resistors? Must he catch resistors with dedicated criminal past? Dedicated criminal future? Dedicated muggers & rapists? Where is the thin line between real criminals & "criminals" in Nazi meaning? Questions, questions, questions...
By the way, main line plot in this story began in the moment when unknown visitor came for our hero & asked him... to help "real Britains" to free English King who get into German high security prison in 1940 summer. Most thrilling story with very nasty twists in sujet...
Well, let's chuck it out - pls, answer are you sure that USA could make a truce with Hitler & stay "moral enough" in own eyes? It is the most puzzling question - not question about technology achevments at all... (I heard somebody told that Roosevelt wasn't moral enough making alliance with Stalin, was he?)
joespaniel
Unescorted Settler
Nope. In 1940 the French had better armor than the Germans, and more of it.
The French were prepared for WWI part II, not the blitzkrieg that rained down on them instead. They spread out their tanks instead of massing them for effect, like the Germans did.
The British and French tanks were usually only stopped by the 88mm anti-aircraft guns, not German armor.
However, in 1943 Germany introduced the Tiger and Panther tanks. Those were then the best on the battlefield.
Ethics
Yeehaw!
Hmm this is a hard thing to call. Theres so many factors to it.
I don't think Japan and Germany's alliance could have lasted. Their racist ideologies we're too much for that to last much like Fascist Nazis couldnt get along with the Bolshevic Communists for too long.
Japan goes to war with the US, but dosent get Hitler to declare. Japan is eventually beaten by the US. Germany occupies the USSR.
I guess this is where it gets icky. Would the German population of the US sway it to side with Germany, or would we be swayed by our history with GB? Could Hitler have stopped himself? The Holocaust would have eventually become front page news. If Hitler had been able to stop the USSR; would GB, US & allies have been able to mount an offensive anyway?
Mussolini's government was able to stay afloat, and probably could have lasted if he hadn't been "peer pressured" by Hitler. Whos to say the Nazi regime couldn't have... heck the USSR stayed up and running for quite a while itself.
I don't think Japan and Germany's alliance could have lasted. Their racist ideologies we're too much for that to last much like Fascist Nazis couldnt get along with the Bolshevic Communists for too long.
Japan goes to war with the US, but dosent get Hitler to declare. Japan is eventually beaten by the US. Germany occupies the USSR.
I guess this is where it gets icky. Would the German population of the US sway it to side with Germany, or would we be swayed by our history with GB? Could Hitler have stopped himself? The Holocaust would have eventually become front page news. If Hitler had been able to stop the USSR; would GB, US & allies have been able to mount an offensive anyway?
Mussolini's government was able to stay afloat, and probably could have lasted if he hadn't been "peer pressured" by Hitler. Whos to say the Nazi regime couldn't have... heck the USSR stayed up and running for quite a while itself.
Panda
Metal head
'Fatherland' is definitely worth a read. 
Personally, I just felt the twist in the end which makes the book end the way it does is unbelievable. But then again, it's just fiction.
Personally, I just felt the twist in the end which makes the book end the way it does is unbelievable. But then again, it's just fiction.
Dang, I need to type faster!
I was writing a quick summary of Fatherland..(snaps fingers.)
It's a good movie, and the book was even better. Very creepy alternative history.
Still, nobody mentioned (dare I risk spoiling it?) that the hero and heroine stumble across WWIIs most ghastly side. I say stumble, because it has remained a conspiratorially kept secret for 20 years. They find evidence that can wreck a potential peace treaty!
Rent the movie or get the book from the library...then hang on to your seat and turn up the lights. Creepy is too mild a word for this suspense story. Skin crawling is more like it.
I was writing a quick summary of Fatherland..(snaps fingers.)
It's a good movie, and the book was even better. Very creepy alternative history.
Still, nobody mentioned (dare I risk spoiling it?) that the hero and heroine stumble across WWIIs most ghastly side. I say stumble, because it has remained a conspiratorially kept secret for 20 years. They find evidence that can wreck a potential peace treaty!
Rent the movie or get the book from the library...then hang on to your seat and turn up the lights. Creepy is too mild a word for this suspense story. Skin crawling is more like it.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
"What if instead we has a Coldwar with the Nazis?"
My immediate thought on this was, we did - and we lost it.
It's hard to see 1933-1939 as anything else.
R.III
PS: SS-GB is much better than Fatherland, if we're comparing the two...
My immediate thought on this was, we did - and we lost it.
It's hard to see 1933-1939 as anything else.
R.III
PS: SS-GB is much better than Fatherland, if we're comparing the two...
Even better, pick up Speer's autobiography at the library *before* you see the movie. You don't have to read it, just browse through the sketches of all the gargantuan monuments and public buildings that Hitler wanted Speer to build after the war.
Of course, these megalithic Fascist-glorifying buildings never existed except in Speer's and Hitler's imaginations...until the movie Fatherland and its decent special effects added them to Berlin's landscape.
Recognizing the buildings in the movie will make your flesh crawl.
Of course, these megalithic Fascist-glorifying buildings never existed except in Speer's and Hitler's imaginations...until the movie Fatherland and its decent special effects added them to Berlin's landscape.
Recognizing the buildings in the movie will make your flesh crawl.
Similar threads
