New Reality Seeds

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Japan realizes the timing is bad and doesn't attack Pearl Harbor.

Pearl Harbour was attacked on December 7th 1941, and the Japanese landed in Malaya the next day. They didn't start attacking Singapore itself until February 8th, two months after Pearl Harbour.

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Pearl Harbour was attacked on December 7th 1941, and the Japanese landed in Malaya the next day. They didn't start attacking Singapore itself until February 8th, two months after Pearl Harbour.

Well in this parallel the Hartler pegged the mark the Reichsmark to the Dollar, and Chamberlain, focusing in on the threat of Japanese Militarism, got tough over there.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Pearl Harbour was attacked on December 7th 1941, and the Japanese landed in Malaya the next day. They didn't start attacking Singapore itself until February 8th, two months after Pearl Harbour.

Oh well, my chronology is better on the 16th and 17th centuries. Still, Arthur Percival was something of a disaster. Someone else in the role would radically change the history of the Asian war.

[Astromancer]

Try this idea, in the late 1930s a wheat blight strikes European fields. Suddenly, American grain shipments are vital. The continent is hurt most intensely. Hitler and Stalin are aware that they can't get cut off from American grain shipments until they are able to produce their own food again.

The pressure this puts on Hitler is enormous. The games Hitler was playing to keep the German economy growing were rapidly alienating most of Europe. If Hitler starts a war, America won't ship grain to him. If Hitler doesn't start a war the whole house of cards that is the German economy collapses and ends the Third Reich.

Homeline prefers the second outcome. The Cabal has reason to prefer the first on this world. Centrum doesn't know what it wants.

Let the games begin.

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

The pressure this puts on Hitler is enormous. The games Hitler was playing to keep the German economy growing were rapidly alienating most of Europe. If Hitler starts a war, America won't ship grain to him. If Hitler doesn't start a war the whole house of cards that is the German economy collapses and ends the Third Reich.

I expect the answer to be, "Hitler starts a war to take everyone else's remaining grain. Either Hitler wins, and America must choose between starving a continent on general principles or caving; or Hitler loses, at which point Herbert Hoover 2.0 arrives to save the day like at the end of WW1."

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by TGLS

I expect the answer to be, "Hitler starts a war to take everyone else's remaining grain. Either Hitler wins, and America must choose between starving a continent on general principles or caving; or Hitler loses, at which point Herbert Hoover 2.0 arrives to save the day like at the end of WW1."

Remember, America starts isolationist and Britain isn't under the same stress as the continent. Churchill had used famine as a weapon before, and neither Chamberlain nor Halifax had any scruples against such a maneuver. All three men worked to create a postwar famine (1919) in Germany to prevent the birth of future soldiers. The plan is now seen as backfiring, but in the late 1930s it wasn't seen in a negative light. Canada, Australia, and South Africa would be exporting grain to Britain and France.

No, Hitler and Stalin are the ones under pressure. Now France is still self-handicapped in this scenario. France had some of the most advanced aviation design in the period, but no coherent airplane industry nor much of a functional air force. France had some of the most advanced telecommunications technology and the French phone system wasn't able to patch a call from Paris to Calis. The US, by way of contrast, had long distance phone service connecting all the major cities before WWI. France clung to the 19th century in hundreds of ways. So Germany still beats them in the late 1930s. But that doesn't help Hitler.

This scenario still leads to vast chaos and misery. Homeline France doesn't want this world's France ground to powder. So Homeline agents are still going to be required to get involved.

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Churchill had used famine as a weapon before, and neither Chamberlain nor Halifax had any scruples against such a maneuver.

And yet Churchill needed to be coerced into accepting the Morganthau Plan, not the other way around.

Yes, Germany is probably going to lose. But faced with, "Economic Collapse" or "Go to War", the already somewhat mad regime of Nazi Germany is probably going to pick the risky gamble that they may somehow win the war. Heck, they might not even directly attack the West, but instead set off a chain reaction that they did historically.

But Britain wins this war, presumably by starving Germany out and forcing a regime change. I find it very questionable that their peace plan would include, "Permanently cripple Germany", especially given that the Soviet Union is still kinda just there.

I don't see Stalin doing much of anything. The wars he started were, "Let's crush weak neighbours" and in the case of the Winter War they threw in the towel before achieving success. I imagine he may feel even weaker at home and stay out of foreign affairs for a while, remaining this looming force that the West worries itself about

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by TGLS

And yet Churchill needed to be coerced into accepting the Morganthau Plan, not the other way around.

The Morganthau plan was rejected in America just about as soon as it was made public. Morganthau had to publicly apologize to keep his job. It's interesting that America gets far more criticism for a plan that was never official, let alone put in practice, than many European nations received for actual war crimes.

Yes, Germany is probably going to lose. But faced with, "Economic Collapse" or "Go to War", the already somewhat mad regime of Nazi Germany is probably going to pick the risky gamble that they may somehow win the war. Heck, they might not even directly attack the West, but instead set off a chain reaction that they did historically.

Given Hitler's volatility that makes sense. Trying to reign that in would be the challenge.

But Britain wins this war, presumably by starving Germany out and forcing a regime change. I find it very questionable that their peace plan would include, "Permanently cripple Germany", especially given that the Soviet Union is still kinda just there.

Churchill could learn from mistakes, but I don't know about Chamberlain or Halifax.

I don't see Stalin doing much of anything. The wars he started were, "Let's crush weak neighbours" and in the case of the Winter War they threw in the towel before achieving success. I imagine he may feel even weaker at home and stay out of foreign affairs for a while, remaining this looming force that the West worries itself about

Stalin was, in his brutal way, experimental. If Europe was sufficiently chaotic, Stalin might grab what he could for long term security (at least as he would see it).

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

France had some of the most advanced telecommunications technology and the French phone system wasn't able to patch a call from Paris to Calis.

My immediate reaction to that was 'HOW?!', but then I wondered if it was basically several phone systems, rather than one. I could see that happening, given that Britain's early railway networks had similar problems.

Originally Posted by TGLS

And yet Churchill needed to be coerced into accepting the Morganthau Plan, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Astromancer

The Morganthau plan was rejected in America just about as soon as it was made public. Morganthau had to publicly apologize to keep his job. It's interesting that America gets far more criticism for a plan that was never official, let alone put in practice, than many European nations received for actual war crimes.

America has the combination of 'being THE Big world power (that everyone - including some of our own people - wants to take down a peg)' and 'having a relatively free press and legally needing to act like it.' Thus, people both want to heap criticism on America, and can more easily get away with doing so.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Prince Charon

My immediate reaction to that was 'HOW?!', but then I wondered if it was basically several phone systems, rather than one. I could see that happening, given that Britain's early railway networks had similar problems.

Got it in one. France never seemed even vaguely interested in a unified phone system until the 1970s. Why? I don't know.

America has the combination of 'being THE Big world power (that everyone - including some of our own people - wants to take down a peg)' and 'having a relatively free press and legally needing to act like it.' Thus, people both want to heap criticism on America, and can more easily get away with doing so.

That might excuse ordinary people. But scholars and journalists seeking to be seen as serious news sources need to follow a higher standard.