Tango01 | 08 May 2014 10:54 p.m. PST |
"When it comes to alternative history, the Second World War is king. Dozens of books and wargames suggest how history would have changed if Hitler had invaded Britain or not invaded Russia. Want to know what happens when a Nimitz-class supercarrier goes back in time to battle the Japanese fleet at Pearl Harbor? There's a movie for that. What would the world be like if Nazi Germany had won? Plenty of novels paint a dark portrait. Would the Third Reich have triumphed if it had developed jet fighters sooner? Such topics are like incendiary bombs on Internet chat forums. Yet fascinating as these questions are, why are they any more fascinating than asking what would have happened if Imperial Germany had not invaded Belgium in 1914, if the Kaiser had built more U-boats, or if America had not entered the war? If it is plausible to imagine a historical timeline where Hitler won, then why not one in which the tsars still rule Russia, the British Empire was never exhausted by war, and the Ottoman Empire still controls the Middle East? Perhaps it is the grim aura of fatalism that discourages speculative history of the Great War. The sense that no matter what, the conflict would have been one long, miserable slaughter, a four-year live performance of "Paths of Glory." But the combatants were not drones or sheep, and the conflict was more than mud, blood and barbed wire. There was mobile warfare in Russia and Poland, amphibious invasions in Turkey and guerrilla campaigns in East Africa
" Full article here. link Amicalement Armand |
Phil Gray | 09 May 2014 2:42 a.m. PST |
Interesting stuff
There's an argument out there for a reverse Schlieffen: Sit on the defensive in Alsace Lorraine and butcher the French as they Plan XIX themselves to defeat, while massing in the east and setting the Tsar's army on its heels. The Russians are slow to mobilise, so the Germans can get inside their mobilisation schedule, disrupting an army that has legendarily poor communications/ command and control abilities to the point where the Tsar sues for peace? Let the French learn the hard way that massed infantry attacks no longer work in the age of the bolt action rifle and machine gun. As this doesn't involve Belgium, and appears defensive in posture, there's no treaty violation and no obvious threat to Britain. No overbearing war aims required of the French, a change of landlord for some Eastern Europeans, and Africans/ Asians as Germany makes a few adjustments and there you have it
Tsarist Russia may still crumble, but the US can maintain isolation and Britain doesn't have to hold a firesale of her extensive US assets to finance the war. Which then leads onto what next? Well, if Russia switches from autocracy it could well go with a stab in the back theory of its own for why they lost to the hated Germans
so maybe a Stalinesque figure comes West in 20 years or so
|
Paul B | 09 May 2014 5:31 a.m. PST |
There is a good alternative history novel that deals with what might have happened if Germany had been defensive in the west and concentrated more on the eastern front - "Gray Tide in the East" by Andrew Heller |
wminsing | 09 May 2014 7:35 a.m. PST |
I don't think too much would have had to change at all; Imperial Germany going down in a virtually unconditional surrender was actually one of the less-likely ways the war could have turned out! -Will |
GurKhan | 09 May 2014 7:49 a.m. PST |
"If it is plausible to imagine a historical timeline where Hitler won, then why not one in which the tsars still rule Russia, the British Empire was never exhausted by war, and the Ottoman Empire still controls the Middle East?" Jon Courtenay Grimwood's "Arabesk" trilogy – Pashazade, Effendi, Felaheen. Set mostly in Ottoman Alexandria in what looks like the early C21st. (Though I think Russia did go Soviet.) |
Inkpaduta | 09 May 2014 10:26 a.m. PST |
One major change one could make it have the US be strictly neutral. No seeling of anything to the allies, no coming into the war. That alone may have caused a German vivtory. |
Tango01 | 09 May 2014 11:25 a.m. PST |
Glad you enjoyed the article boys! Amicalement Armand |
dbander123 | 09 May 2014 11:32 a.m. PST |
I enjoy almost everything you find. Thanks for all the hard work Armand! |
liborn | 09 May 2014 5:35 p.m. PST |
|
tuscaloosa | 09 May 2014 6:04 p.m. PST |
Interesting possibilities. If there's one thing to be learned from history, it's that Russia can not be taken out in one dramatic knock-out blow. |
BelgianRay | 10 May 2014 4:45 p.m. PST |
I agree with dbandert123 Armand, you really give us things to look at. |
20thmaine | 12 May 2014 9:22 a.m. PST |
Something I was reading recently suggested that the germans stopped the unlimited submarine warfare too soon. Had they continued for a few more months then Britain may have been starved into surrender
.and stopping did no good as the USA still joined the war. |
Tango01 | 15 May 2014 10:58 p.m. PST |
I was in jail and cannot said thanks for the greetings my friends. (smile). Happy you enjoyed the article!. Amicalement Armand |
bgbboogie | 16 May 2014 2:52 a.m. PST |
Not got lost in August and head straight into Paris. |