New Reality Seeds - Page 309

TGLS · 01-01-2018, 09:05 PM

Some criticisms:

How did Imperial Germany survive WW1? I seriously doubt the lack of the Americans would be that decisive a factor.

How did Britain develop nuclear bombs first? I got the impression many nuclear scientists were Germans.

Why did Japan change sides? With an isolationist United States who is apparently willing to trade with everyone, there would be no trade embargo on the Japanese, and so the "Strike South" faction wouldn't be as powerful. Also, with Germany presumably continuing their relations with China, Japan and Britain would be pushed closer together.

I doubt the Americans would be imposing rule from afar on Arabia. They would have learned their lessons from the Philippines, and allowed them to mostly govern themselves. Public opinion might encourage interference on occasion.

ericthered · 01-01-2018, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGLS

Some criticisms:

How did Imperial Germany survive WW1? I seriously doubt the lack of the Americans would be that decisive a factor.

Read carefully: the American navy broke the British blockade on Germany via Denmark. The German defeat in WWI was at its core an economic one inflicted by a British blockade of its ports. The 1916-1917 winter was known as the turnip winter: they were feeling the strain two years into war. In this alternate the Americans forced the British to either allow american ships to deliver grain to Germany or to start shooting at them.

So Germany survives this by not being starved out of the war. Without that ticking time bomb, the war goes differently.

YankeeGamer · 01-01-2018, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGLS

Some criticisms:

How did Imperial Germany survive WW1? I seriously doubt the lack of the Americans would be that decisive a factor.

How did Britain develop nuclear bombs first? I got the impression many nuclear scientists were Germans.

Why did Japan change sides? With an isolationist United States who is apparently willing to trade with everyone, there would be no trade embargo on the Japanese, and so the "Strike South" faction wouldn't be as powerful. Also, with Germany presumably continuing their relations with China, Japan and Britain would be pushed closer together.

I doubt the Americans would be imposing rule from afar on Arabia. They would have learned their lessons from the Philippines, and allowed them to mostly govern themselves. Public opinion might encourage interference on occasion.

This is a low probability timeline done long ago. (one of my older ones, and I'll admit not the greatest, but something people might be able to play with.)
Imperial Germany survived because they could trade with the USA, and went after Russia earlier and harder.

The nuclear/gas situation could easily be reversed, with a nuclear weapon from Germany being answered by a threat of nerve gas from Britain. Point was that a balance of terror formed, with both sides willing to answer an existential threat in kind.

American "rule" over Arabia is mostly light--keep others from invading, make sure that such things as slavery are prevented. Women's rights--well, what they have in theory and what they have in reality is much like blacks in the south.

Japan, in any timeline, needs oil, and doesn't feel safe depending on other nations to buy it from. They thought they could strike south nicely with Europe involved in another war--didn't work out so well.

If the reality seed is too poor, I regret it...will clean up the next old one better before posting.

TGLS · 01-01-2018, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YankeeGamer

If the reality seed is too poor, I regret it...will clean up the next old one better before posting.

It's 4ish flaws in a lengthy post. Not that bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by YankeeGamer

Imperial Germany survived because they could trade with the USA, and went after Russia earlier and harder.

The nuclear/gas situation could easily be reversed, with a nuclear weapon from Germany being answered by a threat of nerve gas from Britain. Point was that a balance of terror formed, with both sides willing to answer an existential threat in kind.

OK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by YankeeGamer

American "rule" over Arabia is mostly light--keep others from invading, make sure that such things as slavery are prevented. Women's rights--well, what they have in theory and what they have in reality is much like blacks in the south.

Maybe I was over extrapolating the mentioned Supreme court decision. You could probably get the same result by just saying that the Americans leaned on the governments to cede more rights to women, and the governments there pay lip service to the idea. Of course, this America apparently turned away from Wilsonianism, so who knows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by YankeeGamer

Japan, in any timeline, needs oil, and doesn't feel safe depending on other nations to buy it from. They thought they could strike south nicely with Europe involved in another war--didn't work out so well.

I suppose it all comes down to how WW1 ends. If Germany gets to keep it's colonies, Japan will probably sweep south and try to take them. If Germany loses them, they'll be forced to change sides for to take South East Asia.

YankeeGamer · 01-02-2018, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGLS

It's 4ish flaws in a lengthy post. Not that bad.

OK.

Maybe I was over extrapolating the mentioned Supreme court decision. You could probably get the same result by just saying that the Americans leaned on the governments to cede more rights to women, and the governments there pay lip service to the idea. Of course, this America apparently turned away from Wilsonianism, so who knows.

I suppose it all comes down to how WW1 ends. If Germany gets to keep it's colonies, Japan will probably sweep south and try to take them. If Germany loses them, they'll be forced to change sides for to take South East Asia.

There's really no way Germany can keep its colonies with the possible exception of Ost Afrika, unless it persuades someone to give them back at the peace table. They simply can't be held without a brilliant general, such as Lettow-Vorbek (sp?)

My big mistake in this timeline was to get Britain and Japan on opposite sides here. With work, it can be justified, or the world war two part can be changed.

Arabia will be a flashpoint, no matter how you slice it. They wanted something more permanent than an alliance, and becoming a protectorate made them accept certain western ideas, but both the locals and the USA will push--the cultures are SO different. If the contact results in more Americans (particularly the downtrodden) converting to some form of Islam, more possible clashes.)

Even with the USN being the world's greatest, Arabia would be nearly impossible for the USA to defend. Plenty of places for intrigue and conflict, with or without Infinity and Centrum...

Over time, I've put together an assortment of mini timelines, intending to flesh them out; only a few have reached the fleshed out status. As I find the outlines, I'll share 'em, in case someone will find uses. Some have been shared previously on alternatehistory.com, or here before I lost all my info on an old ID for this board years ago.

malloyd · 01-02-2018, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YankeeGamer

Note—the Middle East is officially a protectorate of the USA, and the US Supreme Court as ruled that freedom of religion concerns means that various Islamic customs, such as polygamy, are protected under the first amendment, even if they were to become states.

Leaving aside the sheer unlikeliness of the US taking over anything in the Middle East at this point (what for?, note that it can't be oil at that point, in the 1950s the US didn't import much oil from Arabia and still thinks of itself has having lots) the polygamy thing always bothers me. It's present in a lot of wish fulfilment fictional settings written by men, but really even in the places it's legal, it tends to be a minor issue - most men couldn't *afford* multiple wives, and the ones who could probably could get away with mistresses easily enough. And the US Supreme Court ruled on this issue long ago anyway. They said no. Reynolds v. United States (1878).

AlexanderHowl · 01-02-2018, 07:52 AM

The problem is that battleships were incredibly expensive to maintain and operate (the equivalent of a contemporary aircraft carrier). Each battleship also needed cruisers to provide anti-aircraft protection, destroyers to provide protection from submarines, frigates to escort supply ships, and supply ships to resupply the entire battleship battle group. In total, you would need around thirty support craft for every battleship, meaning that a Navy with 60+ battleships would have 1800+ support craft and would be spending around 5x as much on their Navy as the contemporary USA (around the equivalent of $1.9 trillion per year or 11% of GDP). It would have been simply too expensive for the USA to politically justify maintaining such a large Navy without participating in the two World Wars.

Even the later Navy would have the equivalent of 30 aircraft/battleship battle groups, which would require 900+ support craft and cost the equivalent of a around $1 trillion per year (around 6% of GDP). I really do not see the American people supporting Navy expenses of that level without an existential threat like the USSR. Battleships were phased out in favor of aircraft carriers because of the development of nuclear weapons, as battleships are more vulnerable to nuclear retaliation than aircraft carrier because they need to get closer to their target.

The Germans would have likely won WWI without USA intervention (which would have meant no WWII). By 1917, they had defeated the Russians, the French troops were mutinying, and the British were close to bankruptcy. With the troops from the Eastern Front available to crush the French, they would have occupied Paris before Christmas 1917, and the British would have likely sued for peace at the beginning of 1918. The Germans would have ended WWI with France and the French colonies under its control, though they would have likely lost Indochina because they just did not have the capacity to govern that much territory.

Concerning Japan, during the late-19th century, the Japanese were trying to decide on which European nation to emulate, and they eventually decided on the British over the Germans. In this timeline, they could have decided on the Germans, and they would have allied with the Germans in WWI. In that case, the British would have had real problems because the Japanese would have invaded the Asian British Colonies. The Japanese would have probably invaded the Dutch East Indies, bringing the Dutch into WW1, but the Dutch would have been a minor factor in WWI. In addition, the Japanese would have invaded Far East Russia, which would have caused the defeat of Russia earlier than 1917.

Astromancer · 01-02-2018, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenarthral

Uhm... If the divergence point is in 1687, the current year is 1760 and Europe
has spent the last 40-odd years fighting/being conquered by the Ottoman Empire, isn't most parts of India already self-governing?

I mean, I was given the impression that in OTL the Company Raj didn't
start until 1757 or so, and then it was pretty much just Bengal...

Or do you have anything in particular against the Maratha Empire/Confederation?

The Mulghals were actually self governing in our history until 1847. So I assume India is independent on this world too. But the British and other East India companies would still be rich and thus able to hire vast mercenary armies just like in our history.

Astromancer · 01-02-2018, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGLS

How did Britain develop nuclear bombs first? I got the impression many nuclear scientists were German.

Britain had many important and groundbreaking atomic scientists in period and Churchill was the first politician to take the atomic bomb seriously. In point of fact Churchill was aware of the possibility and importance of an atomic bomb in our history by the 1920s!

YankeeGamer · 01-02-2018, 12:11 PM

Regarding the oversized American fleet--a lot of the ships likelu are in reserve; a naval arms race leads to ships becoming obsolescent or obsolete in a hurry. (Also, if carriers, in this timeline, come from converted battleships, at least at first, they could get state names.)

01-01-2018, 09:05 PM	#3081
TGLS Join Date: Jan 2014	Re: Pax Americana Some criticisms: How did Imperial Germany survive WW1? I seriously doubt the lack of the Americans would be that decisive a factor. How did Britain develop nuclear bombs first? I got the impression many nuclear scientists were Germans. Why did Japan change sides? With an isolationist United States who is apparently willing to trade with everyone, there would be no trade embargo on the Japanese, and so the "Strike South" faction wouldn't be as powerful. Also, with Germany presumably continuing their relations with China, Japan and Britain would be pushed closer together. I doubt the Americans would be imposing rule from afar on Arabia. They would have learned their lessons from the Philippines, and allowed them to mostly govern themselves. Public opinion might encourage interference on occasion.

01-02-2018, 07:52 AM	#3087
AlexanderHowl Join Date: Feb 2016	Re: New Reality Seeds The problem is that battleships were incredibly expensive to maintain and operate (the equivalent of a contemporary aircraft carrier). Each battleship also needed cruisers to provide anti-aircraft protection, destroyers to provide protection from submarines, frigates to escort supply ships, and supply ships to resupply the entire battleship battle group. In total, you would need around thirty support craft for every battleship, meaning that a Navy with 60+ battleships would have 1800+ support craft and would be spending around 5x as much on their Navy as the contemporary USA (around the equivalent of $1.9 trillion per year or 11% of GDP). It would have been simply too expensive for the USA to politically justify maintaining such a large Navy without participating in the two World Wars. Even the later Navy would have the equivalent of 30 aircraft/battleship battle groups, which would require 900+ support craft and cost the equivalent of a around $1 trillion per year (around 6% of GDP). I really do not see the American people supporting Navy expenses of that level without an existential threat like the USSR. Battleships were phased out in favor of aircraft carriers because of the development of nuclear weapons, as battleships are more vulnerable to nuclear retaliation than aircraft carrier because they need to get closer to their target. The Germans would have likely won WWI without USA intervention (which would have meant no WWII). By 1917, they had defeated the Russians, the French troops were mutinying, and the British were close to bankruptcy. With the troops from the Eastern Front available to crush the French, they would have occupied Paris before Christmas 1917, and the British would have likely sued for peace at the beginning of 1918. The Germans would have ended WWI with France and the French colonies under its control, though they would have likely lost Indochina because they just did not have the capacity to govern that much territory. Concerning Japan, during the late-19th century, the Japanese were trying to decide on which European nation to emulate, and they eventually decided on the British over the Germans. In this timeline, they could have decided on the Germans, and they would have allied with the Germans in WWI. In that case, the British would have had real problems because the Japanese would have invaded the Asian British Colonies. The Japanese would have probably invaded the Dutch East Indies, bringing the Dutch into WW1, but the Dutch would have been a minor factor in WWI. In addition, the Japanese would have invaded Far East Russia, which would have caused the defeat of Russia earlier than 1917.

01-02-2018, 12:11 PM	#3090
YankeeGamer Join Date: Dec 2017	Re: New Reality Seeds Regarding the oversized American fleet--a lot of the ships likelu are in reserve; a naval arms race leads to ships becoming obsolescent or obsolete in a hurry. (Also, if carriers, in this timeline, come from converted battleships, at least at first, they could get state names.)