What about for the latter? FWIW, I was asking about both the Philippines and Latin America here.
Alternate History Ideas and Discussion
- Thread starter AndrewJTalon
- Start date
What about for the latter? FWIW, I was asking about both the Philippines and Latin America here.
TheRomanSlayer
Kayabangan, Dugo, at Dangal
Spain didn't have any historical ties to the Indian subcontinent, but Portugal did. Although I wonder if the Indians of Goa could have been used as laborers for Portugal's colonies though.
There aren't that many Indians in Goa, though, are there?
But since Portugal is a small country, they still have a sizable Indian immigrant population from Goa which came there after decolonization:
The Pearls of Lusitania
In late March/early April of this year, I visited Portugal. Now I have finally to come round to writing about it, as I have been promising to. First obvious question: Why Portugal? No reason in particular. Well, apart from it being cheap and convenient - as it happened, I only had to pay for the...
www.unz.com
@Circle of Willis Without Communist rule in Russia (let's say that Lenin dies in or before 1917), how would China have developed? And both Korea and French Indochina, for that matter?
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
China: Would hurt the KMT. The Soviets were actually pretty helpful to them in the 1920s, even before they teamed up with Germany, and sent Sun Yat-sen advisors who helped (among other things) stave off a deathblow against his capital by the local warlord in 1923.
Korea: Depends on whether the butterflies include WW2 being eliminated or not. If it doesn't happen, probably remains under Japanese rule. Otherwise, the Americans and their historically South(-only) Korean allies likely get the whole thing.
Indochina: Same as above, just substitute France for Japan. Or if WW2 still happens, becoming a bunch of semi-independent protectorates (Bao Dai's Vietnam for example) and parts of the French Union perhaps.
Who will replace the KMT in China?
If it remains under Japanese rule, do you mean permanently? As in, up to the present-day? Along with Taiwan? Would Koreans and Taiwanese end up being proud citizens of a Greater Japanese Empire right now in this TL?
Without World War II, there would be no hope at all of any Indochinese independence even up to the present-day?
An interesting AH question from AH.com:
Without the World Wars, would Europe's 1914 borders have remained to the present-day?
Without the World Wars, would Europe's 1914 borders have remained to the present-day? Or would there have been an opportunity to change some of these borders?
www.alternatehistory.com
In 2047, European borders west of the Rhine are indeed going to remain unchanged for 100 years, if Scotland doesn't secede by then!
Is the EU a nation? Will the EU be a nation by 2047? If either of those is a yes, then a lot of national borders you say aren't changed will have been reduced to internal subdivisions. I'd call that change.In 2047, European borders west of the Rhine are indeed going to remain unchanged for 100 years, if Scotland doesn't secede by then!
@Circle of Willis Without France falling in 1940 (or later), do you still expect there to be an Israel? Or would it depend on just how brutal the Nazis are towards Poland's and other countries' Jews? In other words, do they limit themselves to normal pogroms or would Babi Yar-style pogroms become a regular occurrence in these countries while these countries would remain under Nazi rule in this TL?
I don't expect the EU to move from confederation to federation by 2047, frankly.
I don't expect the EU to move from confederation to federation by 2047, frankly.
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
Lots of interesting choices among the other warlords. Personally I'm partial to Li Zongren (who usurped the older, more bandit-y Guangxi warlords by himself and aligned with the KMT after the fact historically - without the KMT around he'd probably just become an independent regional power in his own right) and Feng Yuxiang (who tried to blend Christian teachings, Chinese nationalism and a dash of socialism, but who got a lot of Soviet help and would thus be hurt by their absence much like the KMT).
Probably, Japan seems to have considered Korea an integral colony and put a considerable amount of work into trying to assimilate the Koreans, as well as into repressing Korean dissenters. Might be worth noting that future South Korean dictator Park Chung-hee, for example, was a Japanophile and a military collaborator of theirs.
Likely not IMO, unless you count being a semi-independent country in a lasting French Union. The Vietnamese won the First Indochina War thanks to Japan having seized Vietnam and disrupted French colonial control there, WW2 exhausting the French in general, and Red Chinese shelter & (along with the Soviets) logistical support. No Soviets eliminates one of those conditions outright and makes the others much less likely.
As to your other question, I also doubt it. A Germany that can't break through in France and is eventually probably steamrolled earlier when Stalin backstabs Hitler before the opposite can occur while the W-Allies have built up enough resources (and confidence) to go on the offensive is one that likely doesn't even have the time to get to the death camp stage of the Holocaust. The British themselves would be in a stronger, less exhausted position as well and may be less inclined to accede to the Zionists in the Holy Land, especially as the likes of the Irgun/Lehi will probably still be bothering them with terrorist attacks.
What's the most realistic viable alternative for Palestine in this TL? A binational state? Or an independent Palestinian Arab state? Interestingly enough, I've flirted with ways of trying to improve Israel's demographic situation by getting more Jews to make aliyah if more of them would have survived the Holocaust, but the best that I can come up with would be having the Hungarian Holocaust be avoided or at least greatly reduced if Horthy does not try to prematurely defect from the Axis. Well, that and having an additional 67,000 Polish Jews survive the Holocaust in Lodz if the July 20th Plot would have actually succeeded. I suppose that one could also have Stalin do more deportations of "bourgeouis" Jews in the Soviet Union's newly conquered 1939-1940 territories to the interior of the Soviet Union right before the start of Operation Barbarossa, thus ironically saving their lives, but I wonder just how realistic this actually is.
Also, even by the present-day (2022), you don't think that colonialism is going to fall out of style among Europeans due to a change in public attitudes among them? Such as the idea that non-whites should also deserve national self-determination? Is Jim Crow also going to survive in the US up to the present-day in this TL? Because if one believes that non-whites abroad should not have rights, one could just as easily make this argument in regards to non-whites at home as well, and vice versa. As in, if oppressing non-whites at home won't be popular, then oppressing non-whites abroad won't necessarily be popular forever either.
Anyway, to clarify--your answer for (or perhaps more accurately, against) eventual Vietnamese independence would apply equally if there is no World War II or if there still is a World War II but no Fall of France in 1940 (or later), correct? I just want to make sure about this part.
Also, another question: Without the Nazis, do you ever see Germany (either a surviving Weimar Republic or a right-wing non-Nazi authoritarian German state) cooperating with the Soviet Union to reduce Poland's borders down to size? If Britain won't be willing to directly militarily intervene here, then I'm just not sure that France actually has the necessary population to stop such an alliance from severely reducing the size of Poland's borders, though obviously a complete conquest of Poland would probably be unlikely due to the difficulty of digesting so many Poles.
History Learner
Well-known member
Why? Do you really think the Nazis would care, if you see this as critical? I don't, but even going with the argument, do you really think Hitler is going to let victory over the UK prevent him from utilizing France?
And as such, it's all there to be done. They have a year, and the ability to focus their resources on one front; this is directly the point Havlat makes.
Which ignores "AA guns" like the 88 Flaks were able to be used in a dual use capacity as artillery. Specific to the other points, and? The Germans achieved those territorial gains to disrupt the Soviet economy anyway despite occupying the Balkans historically and fighting the British elsewhere. You've removed the British element, so why exactly does that make Soviet performance better enough to even bring this up? If you also want a Pre-Barbarossa comparison, the German economy is still larger than theirs; it was, even, in 1936.
Britain by late 1944 was broke and had already wound down Tube Alloys.
How about instead of saying it's a debated point, you actually show where the debate is with sources? If you feel my sources are in error, instead of posting aspersions without supporting evidence, you explain with your own citations what you find problematic about their historical analysis? Are they misquoting German statistics? If so, that' easy to prove with countering sources of yours so lets see them.
You've made arguments, yes, but not provided evidence. That's why you have to try to spin it as I "assume" such while ignoring that between the two of us I'm the only one that can cite both Western and Eastern historians supporting my conclusions. Germany was able to overrun much of the USSR's economic basis in 1941 despite fighting a two front war; I don't see anyway being reduced to a one front war with the ability to focus their resources would prevent this given the strategic balance in forces has massively shifted to them. To quote from Denis Havlat (2017) Western Aid for the Soviet Union During World War II: Part I, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies -
With Britain’s refusal to make peace with Germany, the Luftwaffe was forced to commit substantial forces into the bombing of Britain, and later into the Mediterranean, resulting in costly losses. From 1 July 1940 to 22 June 1941, the Luftwaffe lost 4,313 aircraft, including 1,688 bombers and 1,100 fighters.108 Additionally, not all available aircraft could be used against the USSR. By 22 June 1941 a total of 1,561 German aircraft were stationed at other fronts in Europe and in the Mediterranean fighting against Britain, as compared to 3,104 stationed at the Eastern Front.109 German historian Rolf Dietrich-Müller concludes that if Britain had arranged itself with Hitler in the summer of 1940, the Luftwaffe could have used up to 9,640 aircraft at the start of Barbarossa, which would have resulted in a quick victory over the USSR.110 In the second half of 1941, Luftwaffe losses against the Royal Air Force (RAF) remained far lower than the losses sustained against the Soviet air force; however, they were still substantial. By 27 December 1941 the Germans had lost 2,505 aircraft in the East, while losses on all other fronts since June 1941 amounted to 779 aircraft.111
The allocation of the majority of the Luftwaffe to the Eastern Front gave Britain the opportunity to build up its bomber force; this meant that with each passing month the RAF grew stronger and more capable of launching largescale bomber attacks against German industry. After British forces had been kicked out of Europe in France and Greece, this form of warfare had remained the only possible way in which Britain could strike against Germany. Another reason for this approach was the hope to aid the Soviet Union by keeping away large German forces, as well as the desire to end the war without the necessity of costly land warfare. The bomb load dropped by the RAF on Germany and German-occupied territories rose from 13,037 tons in 1940 to 31,704 tons in 1941.112 At this stage of the war bombing was still too imprecise and the bomb load too small to cause any substantial damage to German industry; however, fighting over the skies of Western Europe and the Mediterranean resulted in costly losses for the Luftwaffe. During the second half of 1941 the Royal Air Force was responsible for roughly one-quarter of all German aircraft losses; additionally, large numbers of German aircraft were sent to these fronts to replenish and reinforce the Luftwaffe formations fighting the RAF. By October 1941 there were 642 German aircraft stationed in the Mediterranean theater of war alone.113
Continued British resistance after the summer of 1940 denied the Germans the ability to reorganize and replenish their air forces; instead it forced them into a costly campaign that greatly decimated the Luftwaffe. Without British resistance in the year leading up to Barbarossa and the necessity to keep substantial amounts of aircraft in Western Europe and the Mediterranean, the Luftwaffe could have attacked the USSR with a force up to three times as strong as it actually did. On top of that, German stocks of aviation fuel would have been substantially higher because in case of a British withdrawal or surrender, fuel consumption would have stood at a fraction of the historical level. Even in the second half of 1941, at a time when the majority of the Luftwaffe fought in the East, Britain contributed greatly to Soviet survival by engaging and destroying hundreds of German aircraft, thus preventing the Luftwaffe from creating reserves that could have been used to keep up the strength of German air forces in the East.
Further:
In order to counter possible British landings in Northern France and Norway, the Germans had to keep substantial mechanized forces in these areas. In April 1940 the total German tank stock numbered 3,387 units, of which 2,580, or 76 percent, were used in the invasion of Western Europe.120 By the beginning of June 1941, the German tank stock had increased to 5,639 machines, but only 3,580, or 63.5 percent, were used against the USSR.121 Without British resistance, Germany should have been able to use against the USSR the same percentage of tanks as used against Western Europe, or an additional 700 machines. A thousand German tanks, supported by the hundreds of French, British, and Polish tanks captured during 1939–1940, would have been enough to perform effective occupation duties throughout Europe, had the British been knocked out of the war in 1940.
Buba
A total creep
I've said this before - Germany teams up with USSR to partition Poland ASAP. In OTL Weimar-Soviet relations were excellent.
Could be used for non AA roles, but were not so good at it. This is an eight ton piece (requring appropriate prime mover) doing the job of a 1,5 (field artillery) or 3 ton (AT) gun. With silhouette of a barn door.
One FLAK 18/36 = 4 leFH18* or 2 PAK 43 (which were not a good use of resources IMO).
*Why was it so heavy?
Because if Germany under the Nazis, a rabidly expansionist militaristic state that has made clear its word is worthless, continues to occupy and loot French then Britain has no reason to make a phony peace.
Which means moving a lot more equipment and men - including moblising the latter and taking them away from the economy - east and supplying them there. What do you give up in the drive east to do that?
My point was that a Germany doing slight better and overruning its logistical limitations could cause a major disaster for them larger than Stalingrad and a year earlier.
That's because Britain was fighting an all out war on miltiple fronts. Here none of this is happening. Don't you understand the basis of AH or are you just willing to accept changes that boost your desired result and insist that things that OTL also helped that cause will still happen regardless of events?
Again your ignoring logistics. Also making some dubious statement in those quotes. Britain was never going to align with Nazi Germany after 1939.
I never said that the Soviets would inevitably win. However its far from certain that Germany will conquer as easily as your suggesting. Your also assuming that Britain making peace has no impact on the Soviet actions.
@Circle of Willis What odds would you place on World War I still eventually breaking out (albeit not necessarily in July-August 1914, obviously) had Franz Ferdinand lived?
Eparkhos
Well-known member
Well, the Greeks were planning a pre-emptive strike on the Ottomans for September, so it's pretty much guaranteed.
That would be greek-turkey war,no WW1.Even if Serbia would join/certainly not Bulgary/