05-29-2018, 09:31 AM | #21 |
Night Watchman
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
|
Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question
There's more on the history of Reich-5 in Alternate Earths for 3e, but it concentrates on how that USA turned fascist, rather than how Britain was conquered.
Another detail that could contribute to that: Charles Lindbergh was elected US president in 1936, and regarded fascism as "the wave of the future." If he had blocked the export of 100 octane avgas to the UK, the Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons would not have been able to convert to it in spring 1940 (it all came from the USA at that point) which would have put them at a disadvantage in the BoB compared to OTL.
__________________
The Path of Cunning. Indexes: DFRPG Characters, Advantage of the Week, Disadvantage of the Week, Skill of the Week, Techniques. |
05-29-2018, 09:57 AM | #22 | |
Hero of Democracy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
|
Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question
Quote:
If you've got a "Neutral" US that's meddling as hard for the axis as it did for the Allies in OTL, Britain's situation looks a lot bleaker. Japan either gets a free hand in the pacific and indian oceans or the british have to take nasty naval losses on a two front war. blockading India and Australia becomes feasible. US pressure to make peace would also hurt britain's will to fight. The anglo-sphere is reasonably talented at influencing other members. That still doesn't give an invasion of Canada in 1945 though.
__________________
Be helpful, not pedantic Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog Check out the PbP forum! If you don't see a game you'd like, ask me about making one! |
|
05-29-2018, 10:05 AM | #23 | |||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question
If you mean the attack in Mers-el-Kebir that was in 1940? (I may be misreading you here though!)
Maybe not one of our finer moments, but quite possibly one of our smarter ones! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Grand High* Poobah of the Cult of Stat Normalisation. *not too high of course Last edited by Tomsdad; 05-30-2018 at 12:18 AM. |
|||
05-29-2018, 10:26 AM | #24 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question
If Lindbergh had been elected President more than just the export of avgas goes south for the UK.
|
05-29-2018, 10:41 AM | #25 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
|
Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question
Quote:
If America isn't arguing with Japan over the invasion of China, it's even possible that the US might let go of the Philippines even earlier than we did historically, further reducing tensions between Japan and the US. A pro-fascist Lingbergh presidency might not be a friend of England, China, and the Navy in the same way that Roosevelt was historically. It's likely he would not approve of the Two Oceans Navy Act - which was the legislation that put Japan on a time table to defeat the US before all those battleships and carriers were built - and might even give Japanese adventurism in China a free hand as long as they claimed to be focused on fighting the Communists. A smaller US Navy, abandonment of the Philippines, and a general pro-Japan attitude might entirely defuse Japan's tensions with the USA. Invading Canada from Germany in 1945 is hard. Would a sufficiently pro-Germany Lindbergh government allow Germany to stage an attack from New England? That seems really implausible to me: Lindbergh was an isolationist, but a big believer in Fortress America. But a new president elected in 1944, after seeing Germany defeat England and Russia, might decide to get in on the winning side and at least escort the German troop transports across the Atlantic with USN ships.
__________________
Read my GURPS blog: http://noschoolgrognard.blogspot.com |
|
05-29-2018, 10:50 AM | #26 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question
Quote:
No lend lease or favorable loans to the UK yeah I can definitely see that as a minimum Refusing to sell to or a trade embargo on Britain at all? Lend lease or favorable loans to Germany*? Helping Interdict commercial shipping heading to Britain? Actually getting directly involved militarily (and how does it view Japan, Germany's ally** encroaching on US interests in the Pacific) Guess it partly depends on just how much he wins by! *for a Lindberg looking for a Casus Belli with the UK, that might work. US conveys of aide to Germany may well get interdicted by the RN if the UK is still actively fighting! **although I'm willing to bet given a choice between having the US as an active ally and Japan as an ally, Germany drops Japan like a hot rock!
__________________
Grand High* Poobah of the Cult of Stat Normalisation. *not too high of course Last edited by Tomsdad; 05-29-2018 at 10:55 AM. |
|
05-29-2018, 11:52 AM | #27 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: U.K.
|
Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question
I seem to recall Ken admitting that he doesn't believe in Reich-5; it may actually be a hallucinatory fantasy passing through Hitler's dying brain in the bunker in 1945. It's there because at some point a Stupid Jetpack Hitler Nazi-victory timeline was considered mandatory. The other Reich timelines in Infinite Worlds probably make a lot more sense.
__________________
-- Phil Masters My Home Page. My Self-Publications: On Warehouse 23 and On DriveThruRPG. |
05-29-2018, 12:34 PM | #28 | |||
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question
Quote:
But, it seems that Federalizing state troops is something which just takes a few weeks or months. Training and equipping them takes years, and there were some observant and far-sighted US political leaders and military commanders in the late 1930s who planned for the sort of war the US would have to fight in Europe. Get rid of some of those folks, replace some of them with idiots, and things could be very different. Quote:
Arguably, a certain amount of what Roosevelt did was illegal, given that there were laws on the books which prevented shipment of US arms to warring nations. "Bases for Destroyers," "Lend-Lease" and allowing US pilots to serve as mercenaries in China's American Volunteer Group were all considered to be outrages by the Isolationists. Any screw-up by Roosevelt or his supporters, or just getting Roosevelt out of the way in any time before 1940, could have made history very different. The Isolationists triumph and the Nazis take over the world. Quote:
One possibility is that in 1938, Mexico nationalized all its oil fields. That could have set the stage for US intervention in Mexico on behalf of US oil companies, which could have led to a bloody Iraq-style guerrilla war against the invaders. If most of America's military was bogged down chasing Mexican guerillas, that would make it impossible for them to re-equip, re-arm, and make strategic preparations for a war against an organized European army. |
|||
05-29-2018, 01:03 PM | #29 | |
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question
Quote:
Two factors which don't get as much play in alternate history are that the Depression of 1929 could have been much worse, which would have meant that more people would be desperate for radical change in the form of communism or fascism. Civil war is a great way to both neutralize a country's military and to make its leaders desperate enough for aid that they welcome foreign military intervention. Additionally, until 1939 (even after), a lot of very influential people in the US, UK, and France supported Hitler. The Axis could have easily won a purely political victory if pro-Fascist elements in Western Europe were stronger, smarter, and better led, or if anti-fascist or pro-communist forces had been "different." There's also the simple trick of changing history so that Roosevelt, Churchill, or any of the other political heroes of World War II ended up "playing for the other side." Imagine what would have happened if Churchill had admired Hitler? (After all, in many ways Churchill was an authoritarian bigot.) Or, imagine what would have happened if Roosevelt (a rich aristocrat who would have been right at home among the leaders of the Fascist party) had become enamored by Italian-style Fascism in the 1920s! |
|
05-29-2018, 02:01 PM | #30 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
|
Re: Reich-5: Battle of Britain question
Quote:
I don't think he would have directly embargoed Britain, but he might decide that to respect Germany's blockade of Britain. The US goes back and forth on how much they want freedom of navigation versus respecting other people's blockades, but we generally respected the British blockade of Germany in WWI, so there's precedent for respecting a German blockade of Britain. I don't see Lindbergh liking Germany so much as to give them favorable loans or interdicting commercial traffic. There is an outside chance that if the US continues shipping to Britain, US traffic would be mandated to be radio noisy, constantly alerting German submarines to their locations as a safety measure - and if they're loudly hailing every other ship they come across, they could serve as beacons for wolf packs. Seems like a dick move, but the USN intervened before our formal entry into the war against Germany in similar ways so it's possible. The US, at least under Lindbergh, wouldn't get involved militarily in Europe. They might decide to clean European influence out of the Western hemisphere, though, and forcibly decolonize British possessions in central and south America. Even that seems like a stress. Still, from the British perspective, no Lend-Lease, no DFBA, no USN support against the u-boats, and a soft embargo are pretty bad. Enough to get Halifax to take charge and throw in the towel early? Possibly.
__________________
Read my GURPS blog: http://noschoolgrognard.blogspot.com |
|
Tags |
infinite worlds, reich 5 |
|
|