Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
'FDR Serves In WW1'. As in, circumstances ahead of time mean that he doesn't become Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and either voluntarily enlists in or gets drafted into the military. Assuming that conflict similar to what took place IOTL breaks out, obviously.
 

stevep

Well-known member
'FDR Serves In WW1'. As in, circumstances ahead of time mean that he doesn't become Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and either voluntarily enlists in or gets drafted into the military. Assuming that conflict similar to what took place IOTL breaks out, obviously.

Assuming that he survives the conflict he might have more prestige as a result, unless he fouls up badly. However might it butterfly his catching polio? Although leaving office and a period in military service would reduce his political experience during this period, which might have a determental effect on his political career.

Steve
 

BlackDragon98

Freikorps Kommandant
Banned - Politics
Assuming that he survives the conflict he might have more prestige as a result, unless he fouls up badly. However might it butterfly his catching polio? Although leaving office and a period in military service would reduce his political experience during this period, which might have a determental effect on his political career.

Steve
He might die of Spanish flu, as Europe was pretty hard hit, especially Germany because of the Allied blockade that was starving out the population even after the November 11th armistice had been signed.
 

stevep

Well-known member
He might die of Spanish flu, as Europe was pretty hard hit, especially Germany because of the Allied blockade that was starving out the population even after the November 11th armistice had been signed.

True the flu might affect Roosevelt, whether or not he was actually in US forces deployed to Europe. Think only ~1.8M of the 4M planned were in France at the armistice so he might not have made it to Europe but since it hit all around the world he might still have been affected as military camps with large concentrations of men were one of the worst types of places to be.

I don't think the blockade was continuing at that stage. As I understand it the problem was because there was only an armistice and the war might be resumed at any point the allies were unwilling to send their ships to German ports and the Germans wouldn't send their MS out to pick up grain.

Since part of the armistice deal was the allies occupation of the west bank of the Rhine and was it two or three substantial bridgeheads beyond it I would be pretty much certain there was no problem with food going into those areas and very little to stop it going beyond that other than logistic issues. Checking, see Occupation_of_the_Rhineland it was 4 bridgeheads, three of 30km radius and one of 10km radius.

As such, whether it was used or not there would be the capacity to land food at say French, Belgium or Dutch ports for shipment on into Germany. Possibly with the chaos and uncertainty in Germany during this period there were problems organising or paying for such deliveries however. Plus it would take time to set up and ship grain and the like from the US

Steve
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
So here's a thought from Biblical history. Suppose Pharaoh was reasonable in Exodus? When Moses and Aaron first approached him, they didn't ask to go free but to be allowed to celebrate a festival in the wilderness. Instead of going god-complex, Pharaoh agrees provided they swear on their God to return and that they will also ask for blessings on Egypt along with their sacrifices.

What would be the consequences of Pharaoh's decision?
 

Buba

A total creep
So here's a thought from Biblical history. Suppose Pharaoh was reasonable in Exodus?
You mean unreasonable i.e. he believed the lies the two Jews told him?
I rate the Exodus story as very high on ASB (Angelic Saintly Beings) scale to begin with :)
You make a tough call - an AU to an ASB story ...
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
You mean unreasonable i.e. he believed the lies the two Jews told him?
I rate the Exodus story as very high on ASB (Angelic Saintly Beings) scale to begin with :)
You make a tough call - an AU to an ASB story ...
That was after Moses performed several miracles and showed that his divine backing was much stronger than Pharoah's high priests, such as turning his staff into a snake that then ate all the snakes the Egyptian priests were able to summon.
 

Buba

A total creep
By lies I mean "oh, we just mean to go the desert and prance about on moonbeams, and we will be back in a week and return all the money and valuables we borrowed" and not running away.
BTW - so it was the lack of rat-eating snakes which caused the famines as rodents ate all the grain supplies? Plagues too - no snakes -> more rats -> more carriers of fleas and whatnot.
Hiss-boo! How unecological of you, Moses! You should be ashamed of yourself!
EOT
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
By lies I mean "oh, we just mean to go the desert and prance about on moonbeams, and we will be back in a week and return all the money and valuables we borrowed" and not running away.
BTW - so it was the lack of rat-eating snakes which caused the famines as rodents ate all the grain supplies? Plagues too - no snakes -> more rats -> more carriers of fleas and whatnot.
Hiss-boo! How unecological of you, Moses! You should be ashamed of yourself!
EOT
... You know the famines were a couple hundred years before Moses in the days of Jacob right? And rats weren't the problem given that Jacob had piled up so much grain the Egyptians couldn't count it all anymore, the problem was nothing grew for seven years, and they had to live on Jacob's granary storage system.

Israel didn't demand any money or valuables until Pharaoh had broken his word enough times that "A festival" was off the table and only letting Israel go with a hefty payment was accepted. Each time Pharaoh made a promise and broke it, the payment God demanded through Moses grew more severe.

I'll grant, the possibility of Israel just running away would appear high but oaths on one's god were taken pretty seriously in that era too.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Hitler listens to Raedar, and does the Mediterranean Strategy in 1941. Pressure the Turks into an accord, and then use them as a base from which to support Vichy Syria, the Iraqi uprising and to support Iran diplomatically in nationalizing the oil industry. Between that and the additional air resources to force Malta under and additional logistics to Rommel, the British position in the Middle East will collapse.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Hitler listens to Raedar, and does the Mediterranean Strategy in 1941. Pressure the Turks into an accord, and then use them as a base from which to support Vichy Syria, the Iraqi uprising and to support Iran diplomatically in nationalizing the oil industry. Between that and the additional air resources to force Malta under and additional logistics to Rommel, the British position in the Middle East will collapse.

Then Stalin backstab him before he could do that.You get not only Europe,but also Turkey and Middle East in soviet hands.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Hitler listens to Raedar, and does the Mediterranean Strategy in 1941. Pressure the Turks into an accord, and then use them as a base from which to support Vichy Syria, the Iraqi uprising and to support Iran diplomatically in nationalizing the oil industry. Between that and the additional air resources to force Malta under and additional logistics to Rommel, the British position in the Middle East will collapse.

It would be put under great pressure but collapse wouldn't be certain as there would be huge logistical challenges for the Germans here. Even if the Turkey comply with the German demands, which is far from certain and could also bring the Soviets into play as they wouldn't want the Germans that close to their southern flank.

The Iraqi rebels were a very fragile formation, hence their so quick suppression. Ditto with Vichy Syria. You would need to have the rebels only really activate after German forces pass through Turkey.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
It would be put under great pressure but collapse wouldn't be certain as there would be huge logistical challenges for the Germans here. Even if the Turkey comply with the German demands, which is far from certain and could also bring the Soviets into play as they wouldn't want the Germans that close to their southern flank.

The Iraqi rebels were a very fragile formation, hence their so quick suppression. Ditto with Vichy Syria. You would need to have the rebels only really activate after German forces pass through Turkey.

Stalin was tolerating outright border violations by the Germans at this time because of the atrocious state of the Red Army; his hope was to continue to buy time until 1942 or so when the RKKA would be prepared to actually engage the Germans in the Russian estimation of the situation. Redirecting the Germans into the South, away from the Soviet heartland, would thus be a welcome change in their strategic picture.

Outside of that, specifically looking at the British situation in 1941, a Mediterranean Strategy would be disastrous. Bulgaria had granted permission as early as December, 1940 for the Germans to intervene into the Greek situation via their territory, which meant that campaign could be moved up by several months instead of being done in April. This gives time to force Turkey into compliance and intervene in Vichy Syria and to support the Iraqi rebels. As for the capacity of the British to resist this, see Britain, Turkey, and the Soviet Union, 1940-45:

G1BklEB.png

dzfSY1x.png

5mZpdnn.png
 

ATP

Well-known member
Are you talking about an attack in 1941 with the Icebreaker Hypothesis or later, like 1942?

1941.And it is basically fact now - if soviets have army on border and that army had maps of german controlled territories ,but not soviet,that they wanted to attack.And ,becouse they started removing barbed wire on border,they wanted attack in 1941.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
1941.And it is basically fact now - if soviets have army on border and that army had maps of german controlled territories ,but not soviet,that they wanted to attack.And ,becouse they started removing barbed wire on border,they wanted attack in 1941.

I agree the academic consensus has emerged that Stalin planned to eventually attack Hitler, although I disagree with the July 1941 date proposed by the Icebreaker Hypothesis. David Glantz wrote his Stumbling Colossus as a rebuttal of it and I find it convincing. From When Titans Clashed again:

There is no question that Soviet dogma had long spoken of “liberating” capitalist Europe by an offensive that would inspire the workers to revolt against their masters. In all probability, Stalin intended to enter the war at some future date when Germany was so overstretched that a Marxist revolution appeared possible. 54 It is equally true, as described earlier, that the Red Army had a theoretical and organizational bias in favor of offensive action, if only to ensure that future wars were fought on foreign soil rather than that of the Soviet Union. This bias may have made Stalin and his generals overconfident until Zhukov recognized the imminent German threat in May (see below).55 Having said this, there is little convincing evidence that either the Germans or the Soviets thought the latter could initiate such a conflict in 1941. On the contrary, as this chapter has documented, both sides were acutely aware of the weakness and unpreparedness of the Red Army and VVS. If anything, the German success against France and Britain caught Stalin by surprise, forcing him to confront his ideological foe long before he had expected Hitler to defeat the West. Moreover, the Germans had been preparing their invasion since mid-1940, long before there were any indicators of Soviet preparations to attack.​

And for citation 54, for greater context:

54. The Timoshenko reforms were supposed to be completed in the summer of 1942.
 

Zero

Roddymcdow
Russian revolution
Whites win
1960
Hubert Humphrey wins nomination.

1980
Ted kennedy defeats Carter

Walt Disney
Stays active till 1981
 

ATP

Well-known member
I agree the academic consensus has emerged that Stalin planned to eventually attack Hitler, although I disagree with the July 1941 date proposed by the Icebreaker Hypothesis. David Glantz wrote his Stumbling Colossus as a rebuttal of it and I find it convincing. From When Titans Clashed again:

There is no question that Soviet dogma had long spoken of “liberating” capitalist Europe by an offensive that would inspire the workers to revolt against their masters. In all probability, Stalin intended to enter the war at some future date when Germany was so overstretched that a Marxist revolution appeared possible. 54 It is equally true, as described earlier, that the Red Army had a theoretical and organizational bias in favor of offensive action, if only to ensure that future wars were fought on foreign soil rather than that of the Soviet Union. This bias may have made Stalin and his generals overconfident until Zhukov recognized the imminent German threat in May (see below).55 Having said this, there is little convincing evidence that either the Germans or the Soviets thought the latter could initiate such a conflict in 1941. On the contrary, as this chapter has documented, both sides were acutely aware of the weakness and unpreparedness of the Red Army and VVS. If anything, the German success against France and Britain caught Stalin by surprise, forcing him to confront his ideological foe long before he had expected Hitler to defeat the West. Moreover, the Germans had been preparing their invasion since mid-1940, long before there were any indicators of Soviet preparations to attack.​

And for citation 54, for greater context:

That do not explain,why soviet start removing barber wire on border in 1941,and replacing NKWD border units with normal army.According to soviet manuals,that something what was made before attack.
Another proofs -
1.artillery units was installed on border,and ammo was on land.Soviet do not planned to built ammo schelter for it,and if they left it for winter it would be useless in 1942.

2.Soviet paratroopers had gliders,but do not built and to not planned built hangars for them - till 1942 only some wood would be left.

3.Soviet fronts was made 21.6.41 - before germans attacked.

4.Soviet new troops could spent winter in tents,but their ammo and trucks could not.And they do not plan built any schelters for it.

5.Millions of german-russian mini-dictionaries was given to soldiers/like hans up or where are SA-man/ ,if they wonted attack in 1942,they would give it in 1942.

6.Yes,they still need more stuff - but with 6:1 advantage in tanks,including 900 imperashible for Wermaht KW ,they could afford attacking in 1941.
 
Last edited:

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
'1972 Election If Hubert Humphrey Wins In 1968'. Preferably without Tricky Dick's sabotage being revealed, so that Humphrey can't keep riding on a tide of anger that kneecaps the GOP for the next few election cycles.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top