New Reality Seeds

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Actually, I think the Church might have enough sense to avoid triggering a new war that will devastate Spain.

The Pope and the Curia yes. But many members of the Spanish Clergy were Fascist and the better more spiritual clergy generally got kicked out by the Fascists making the mess worse.

With tactical use of conveyors to bypass normal security precautions, certainly. Hitler shows up in France dead, of course.

He's deserving of worse. But a dead Hitler would mean fewer dead people around him.

The real issue is preventing the derailing of things like the Marshall Plan, the Nuremberg Trials, the early beginnings of the EU, and implementing the Bretton Woods System.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

He's deserving of worse. But a dead Hitler would mean fewer dead people around him.

It also means he can't say anything about how he left Spain.

The real issue is preventing the derailing of things like the Marshall Plan, the Nuremberg Trials, the early beginnings of the EU, and implementing the Bretton Woods System.

Spain got no Marshall plan aid anyway, and the plan wasn't formulated until late 1947. The Nuremberg Trials start in November 1945, but were being set up already. Bretton Woods has already been negotiated, and the Soviet bloc was never part of it. Spain is more of a pariah state, but it did not join the EEC until 1986 in OTL.

A period of a week or two in which Hitler is definitely known to be alive (many people doubted his death in 1945) and then turns up dead seems not to make a huge difference.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by johndallman

It also means he can't say anything about how he left Spain.

Truly desirable.

Spain got no Marshall plan aid anyway, and the plan wasn't formulated until late 1947. The Nuremberg Trials start in November 1945 but were being set up already. Bretton Woods has already been negotiated, and the Soviet bloc was never part of it. Spain is more of a pariah state, but it did not join the EEC until 1986 in OTL.

A second bout of WWII or the start of WWIII could derail all of these.

A period of a week or two in which Hitler is definitely known to be alive (many people doubted his death in 1945) and then turns up dead seems not to make a huge difference.

If it is kept to that alone, yes. This was meant to be a dramatic setting, an alternate start to the Cold War. The threat of Stalin trying to invade Western Europe was terrifying in our history. In this world, the panic would be greater and the threat of that panic deeper and more destructive. Just the damage that could be done to American democracy by a heightened "Red Scare" could brutally warp this world. The possibility of keeping the "Cold War" from becoming a nuclear war would be less in this world.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

If it is kept to that alone, yes. This was meant to be a dramatic setting, an alternate start to the Cold War.

I don't think it's in character for Stalin to really prepare to fight the rest of the world for the sake of invading Spain and putting Hitler on the scaffold. Whenever possible, he made sure he could convince, deceive or strong-arm other powers to go along with his plans.

The guys you have to look out for in this scenario, OTOH, are the Western leaders and generals who did consider things like the first Unthinkable plan. If Stalin so much as makes a bluff about invading France and then Spain, with no actual intention to carry out such a catastrophic idea, but only with the intention to apply pressure on the Westerners... Churchill and some Western generals, including some US ones, might jump at the chance and insist that the sooner the better.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

He's deserving of worse. But a dead Hitler would mean fewer dead people around him.

On reflection, if he's still alive in September 1945, he's seen all that he's tried turn to ashes. Germany has been conquered, but the German people are still alive, which he felt they did not deserve. The Allies have not turned on each other, although their relations are not good. The whole world has rejected his beliefs.

In your scenario, he may well have arranged for his survival to be revealed specifically to try to provoke a war.

Originally Posted by Astromancer

If it is kept to that alone, yes. This was meant to be a dramatic setting, an alternate start to the Cold War. The threat of Stalin trying to invade Western Europe was terrifying in our history. In this world, the panic would be greater and the threat of that panic deeper and more destructive.

However, Spain can be strong-armed into handing him over fairly readily. If the USN and Royal Navy take or sink the Spanish fishing fleet, Spain starves. The rational thinkers among the Allies would prefer triggering a new Spanish Civil War to a WWIII. And many special-operations forces will be happy to take major risks inside Spain to kill Hitler.

Franco knows all these things, and that temporising will just make things worse. His resistance to Hitler was possible because the whole world was busy fighting WWII, and he had something to offer. Now, the whole world is looking at him, and he has nothing.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Michele

I don't think it's in character for Stalin to really prepare to fight the rest of the world for the sake of invading Spain and putting Hitler on the scaffold. Whenever possible, he made sure he could convince, deceive or strong-arm other powers to go along with his plans.

The guys you have to look out for in this scenario, OTOH, are the Western leaders and generals who did consider things like the first Unthinkable plan. If Stalin so much as makes a bluff about invading France and then Spain, with no actual intention to carry out such a catastrophic idea, but only with the intention to apply pressure on the Westerners... Churchill and some Western generals, including some US ones, might jump at the chance and insist that the sooner the better.

A hot war instead of a Cold War is one of the threats of this scenario. Stalin does see a conquest of the West as a when not an if by this period. But he'd want to wait for the right moment. He seems to have thought the Korean War proved the time was at hand. His death prevented WWIII.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by johndallman

On reflection, if he's still alive in September 1945, he's seen all that he's tried turn to ashes. Germany has been conquered, but the German people are still alive, which he felt they did not deserve. The Allies have not turned on each other, although their relations are not good. The whole world has rejected his beliefs.

In your scenario, he may well have arranged for his survival to be revealed specifically to try to provoke a war.

However, Spain can be strong-armed into handing him over fairly readily. If the USN and Royal Navy take or sink the Spanish fishing fleet, Spain starves. The rational thinkers among the Allies would prefer triggering a new Spanish Civil War to a WWIII. And many special-operations forces will be happy to take major risks inside Spain to kill Hitler.

Franco knows all these things, and that temporising will just make things worse. His resistance to Hitler was possible because the whole world was busy fighting WWII, and he had something to offer. Now, the whole world is looking at him, and he has nothing.

That's what I thought when I watched the "documentary" about Hitler fleeing Germany. I don't doubt they discovered the path of many SS officers and Gestapo, but Franco wouldn't have taken risks for others.

[PTTG]

A number of subtle changes allow Boudica to not only drive out the Romans circa 60 CE (340 years early), but also unify the tribes into a matriarchal empire (her forces probably don't slaughter defeated urbanites, merely the leadership, allowing for an improved economic base). It would surely collapse after her death, but would likely reform in response to any attempted incursion.

This can go two ways: It could make Celtic Britain into an exotic yet strangely familiar place to visit. Or, it could be that the integrated Romans somehow preserve some features of the Empire even after the Western Empire falls. A different (possibly matriarchal) government, of course, but roman-style public works and social structures. Heck, go nuts and make all men slaves to the enfranchised women of their society.

More likely outcomes include a latter invasion that revitalizes Rome during its latter days. Or, maybe the Celts repulsed Angles and Saxons, but eventually fell to the French, making a modern form of English that's almost exclusively latin-based even though the politics are pretty similar.

[fchase8]

Originally Posted by malloyd

This *is* a major doctrinal difference, comparable to the Protestant Reformation ditching a bunch of traditional sacraments. It's rooted in much the same sort thing - there are 3 explicit salah in the Qur'an, the other two are traditional - with support in the Hadith, but still, not actually Quranic.

My knowledge of Islam wasn't enough to tell the real differences, especially doctrinal, on Caliph. The 'pray only three times a day' was just specifically mentioned (probably because it's something even non-Muslims know about).

It also didn't seem like Caliph mentioned the Sunni/Shi'ite split, or other Muslim religions (like Ahmahdi). Did it not happen, or did the religious reforms & high-tech setting make them not worth mentioning (like a far future of our world probably wouldn't detail the differences between Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism, etc.)?

Originally Posted by malloyd

It's worth keeping in mind that it's not always easy for outsiders to *tell* if something is or is not significantly divergent in a religion, because a lot of the stuff that's directly observable, and hence needs to be written up in any playable description, since it's what everyone will see, is ultimately customary (adiaphoral as the religious professionals might label it) while stuff that does count as essential doctrinal difference deeply separating two sects can sometimes be invisible, sometimes even to the non-professional members of said sects.

Liturgical differences do not make for interesting gaming. There's a reason D&D never had games about clerics arguing over God of Thunder worship rituals.

Even though actual Medieval Europe was riven with religious fighting, from the Cathars to the Thirty Years War. And Game of Thrones has gotten mileage out of fantasy religious disputes, including a pantheon.

GURPS Fantasy did have Christians & Muslims, but seemed to freeze their religion (adapting to things like no Jerusalem or Mecca).

[PTTG]

Factional infighting is supposedly a thing for the evil pantheons since in D&D good and evil are material, objective concepts. It's broadly true to say you can go get an orb of pure, concentrated evilness. Likewise, a good god will not and cannot tolerate infighting amidst his followers and will usually intercede if it happens regardless. Evil gods, in contrast, generally a pro-infighting as it creates unhappiness and results in the "strongest" surviving.

That said, a dark fantasy can always do with a non-interventionist or uninterested god that lets their church do a little internecine warfare from time to time.