I like that idea a lot! A duel with samurai swords. Doubt it would ever happen, but hey, manga and anime will be a thing here. Imagine an anime Hitler and Coudenhove-Kalergi fighting like the samurai of old during a Battle of Berlin equivalentand so it begins
great chapter as always !
oh also just found about this fellow Richard von coudenhove-kalergi a half Japanese half Austrian who lead the first pan European moment and feuded with hitler IOTL .he could make a good antagonist for the 30s
He would love a country of Germanics ruling the world, but he realistically knows the best he can do is influence and create a confederation of sorts. And Austria will never be able to annex all of Germany and Sozinat Austria doesn’t want to become second fiddle to an Imperial Germany,Interesting, Otl hitler wanted a great unification of the germanic peoples on the continent, with the dutch and scandinavians included in this great reich, this Hitler apparently wants a lesser unification without including the dutch and scandinavians
Hmm, he has not yet but how I envision the Austrians will pay for the war (as there will be far, far less looting compared to OTL. Not due to Sozinats being ‘nicer’ but rather the countries they plunder aren’t exactly rolling in cash or extravagant amount of resources.Did Hitler mention anything about his tax policies?
Thanks for answering my question. Seems like Hitler at least planned something out here and wasn't just making things up as they go along. As for the next arc, I think spending a couple of chapters in 1928/1929 would be best to set the foundation, in my opinion.I would think here that Hitler would keep taxes moderate, with fairly high tariffs for goods made outside a ‘European Economic Trade Consortium’ which favors Austria, Italy and so forth. Hitler and the Sozinats will push for stronger economic ties with their Allies to help bolster their more limited industry, production and trade.
So moderate income taxes, moderate corporate tax, high VAT tax, high tariffs, and the Resident Flight Tax (TTL’s Reich Flight Tax) will start off at 90% and increase to 95% during the war. Jews and Serbians will be allowed to leave early on but have to pay to do so, but once the Holocaust and the war get fully going in the 1940s then leaving will be all but impossible.
Yep sounds good to me.
Hitler being an adjutant at a regiment level during the latter parts of the Great War, he learned more about logistics and military infrastructure more than OTL Hitler. And Austria won’t be able to plunder as many nations as Germany did so that won’t pay for it. I am planning for the Matzen Oil Field to be discovered in the mid-1930s, which will help Austria’s economic recovery and allow them to sell excess oil to build up a ‘war chest’ and expand domestic industry and social systems to appease the populace as he readies them for war.Thanks for answering my question. Seems like Hitler at least planned something out here and wasn't just making things up as they go along. As for the next arc, I think spending a couple of chapters in 1928/1929 would be best to set the foundation, in my opinion.
I absolutely love this comment. Hilarious.Eh, it's been done.
Just a question, and certainly not to destroy you or unjustly criticise, but even with early discovery of resources and a larger industry with more experience workers, and even a technological advantage, how can you expect Austria to take on larger powers like Britain, the USSR, and the USA? They have just such a massive advantage that unless broken up into a multiple-way civil war, would still be larger and more powerful than Austria.I am planning for the Matzen Oil Field to be discovered in the mid-1930s, which will help Austria’s economic recovery and allow them to sell excess oil to build up a ‘war chest’ and expand domestic industry and social systems to appease the populace as he readies them for war.
Author said that by the time European theater of ww2 would begin , Britain would already be fighting Japan and austria would be defeated 2 years earlier than Nazi Germany.They have just such a massive advantage that unless broken up into a multiple-way civil war, would still be larger and more powerful than Austria.
Unless it enters the Europe theater like USSR in Pacific theater in otl, I think USA would be overkill like Austria in otl.When the U.S. enters into the war in 194X
You know what? I completely forgot about that. I have just been enjoying the story as it progresses, so I must have completely spaced it. Thanks.Author said that by the time European theater of ww2 would begin , Britain would already be fighting Japan and austria would be defeated 2 years earlier than Nazi Germany.
A lot of that is tied up with future plot points I don’t want to spoil so I’ll just say that with the Anglo-Japanese War starting in 1940, Britain has to divide its attention between Europe and Asia more so than OTL. France does not join the A-J War until it morphs into the Pacific Theater of WW2. The beginning of the A-J War predates WW2 proper. The U.S. does not actively join the European Theater in any significant way until late in the war, think WW1 2.0 situation with U.S. troops arriving in the last year and a half or so of the war, as it is focused on Japan for much of the war. There is also no Lend-Lease between the Soviet Union and the USA, and the USSR under Sverdlov sees two Great Purges before the war and is not quite as industrialized as OTL USSR. They are not industrializing at the same breakneck speed as Stalin envisioned.Just a question, and certainly not to destroy you or unjustly criticise, but even with early discovery of resources and a larger industry with more experience workers, and even a technological advantage, how can you expect Austria to take on larger powers like Britain, the USSR, and the USA? They have just such a massive advantage that unless broken up into a multiple-way civil war, would still be larger and more powerful than Austria.
Yes. I have been changing when the war proper starts. I have two dates in mind when it could start. The original goal was the war would be five years but I couldn’t legitimize the Axis Power surviving that long so it will most likely be a four or four and a half year war.Author said that by the time European theater of ww2 would begin , Britain would already be fighting Japan and austria would be defeated 2 years earlier than Nazi Germany.
US war efforts in Europe will mainly be supply/logistical aid, loans, equipment transfer and infrastructure assistance in Allied controlled North Africa and elsewhere. USAAF and Navy bombing squadrons, anti-submarine forces, and Special Forces will be the main U.S. combat support until later when US ground troops start to arrive in bulk. There might even be Eisenhower or Patton in Europe though I always envisioned Patton being in China, fighting the Japanese and their Qing puppets.Unless it enters the Europe theater like USSR in Pacific theater in otl, I think USA would be overkill like Austria in otl.
You’re all good! There is a lot of information. I forget things all the time. I know it might be seen that I’m giving Austria a lot of breaks, but I’m having to make Austria a little stronger so as to legitimize their military and political expansion during the 30s and 40s without it smacking of ASB. The Austrian Führer, just like OTL, will be rolling Sixes for a long time but that luck and circumstance will run out eventually. And Austria’s military successes get nowhere close to Nazi Germany’s. And another thing that causes the war to last as long as it does in geography. That’s all I’ll say on that for now.You know what? I completely forgot about that. I have just been enjoying the story as it progresses, so I must have completely spaced it. Thanks.
Damn, two great purges? I just hope Sverdlov spares the old bolsheviks. And less industrialization? Does he keep the NEP for longer?There is also no Lend-Lease between the Soviet Union and the USA, and the USSR under Sverdlov sees two Great Purges before the war and is not quite as industrialized as OTL USSR. They are not industrializing at the same breakneck speed as Stalin envisioned.
It really is quite ridiculous how lucky Nazi Germany was in the 30s... if so many 'buffs' were granted to it in an alternatehistory.com scenario I'm sure everyone would be (rightfully) yelling about ASBs.like OTL, will be rolling Sixes
I've been trying to find proper statistics, but I've been unable to, so I'll have to go off my memory... but I think I have read or possibly watched somewhere that the US aid to the Soviet Union was practically nothing compared to the Soviet Union's own production output, so would the lack of a US-Soviet lend-lease actually change much? Even in the OTL version of events.no Lend-Lease between the Soviet Union and the USA
Honestly, I doubt anyone would envision the OTL Axis Powers surviving as long as they did. The combined Allied GDP was something like ten times higher, the production capabilities of the Soviets alone dwarfed all the Axis Powers combined, in 1939 France had the world's strongest army (on paper, at least). Everything was stacked against the Axis, yet they did manage to keep an impossible war going for 6 years and 1 day, even winning major victories and bringing down France and going to the outskirts of Moscow.Axis Power surviving that long
People vastly overstate how lucky it was. For a lot of these so-called "roll sixes," the circumstances provide an entirely satisfactory explanation for why things went down the way they did. Both sides had a lot of luck; the Germans just used theirs better than the Allies did, during the early years.It really is quite ridiculous how lucky Nazi Germany was in the 30s... if so many 'buffs' were granted to it in an alternatehistory.com scenario I'm sure everyone would be (rightfully) yelling about ASBs.
How do you figure?People vastly overstate how lucky it was. For a lot of these so-called "roll sixes," the circumstances provide an entirely satisfactory explanation for why things went down the way they did. Both sides had a lot of luck; the Germans just used theirs better than the Allies did, during the early years.
From what I understand, the lend-lease meant nothing to the soviets during the year 1941-1942, but afterwards, it did. Mostly in the logistical areas, you know, trains, trucks and food.but I think I have read or possibly watched somewhere that the US aid to the Soviet Union was practically nothing compared to the Soviet Union's own production output, so would the lack of a US-Soviet lend-lease actually change much? Even in the OTL version of events.
France was not willing to go to war over it.Remilitarizing the Rhineland without any response
Collapse of the Stresa Front.Annexation of Austria without any response
Britain backed down because they believed the Luftwaffe was much stronger than it actually was. There were shots fired, but by then the border fortifications of the Sudetenland were gone and it was hopeless.Invasion of Czechoslovakia without firing a shot, they instantly surrender and again no response
Again, not considered worth a war over.Annexation of Memel without any response
The response was a general rearmament.Massive militarization in general without any response
There was a response. Neither France nor Britain were ready for war, and contrary to popular belief Germany had a large force positioned on its border with France to delay any Allied incursions so they could be dealt with when Poland was finished.Invasion of Poland without any response (declaration of war without actually doing anything is not a response)
One will be specifically against the military and government upper echelons, then the other will be a more general purge across the entire Soviet Union that is more thorough and brutal. These Great Purges, especially the Second one, will be a major reason why so much of the Soviet population is either pro-Axis or neutral during the war. The Nazis were initially welcomed as liberators in parts of Ukraine until the Nazis started acting, well, like typical bloodthirsty genocidal racists. The Sozinats, due to their more expanded definition of what constitutes as an Aryan will view the East Slavic peoples as racial cousins under the tyranny of Judeo-Bolshevism rather than racial enemies who are intrinsically tied with aforementioned ideology. And yes he will stick with the NEP for longer. Not an economist so I don’t know if it would benefit or hurt the USSR more than the path Stalin took them down. Economic wise I mean.Damn, two great purges? I just hope Sverdlov spares the old bolsheviks. And less industrialization? Does he keep the NEP for longer?
4-4.5 years is kind of my go-to in my head for the war. Though if you include the preceding Anglo-Japanese War it’s probably closer to 4.5-5 years. Well if the Soviets are in a worse industrial/manufacturing state than OTL, I feel U.S. Lend-Lease would have a greater impact here if it was carried out.It really is quite ridiculous how lucky Nazi Germany was in the 30s... if so many 'buffs' were granted to it in an alternatehistory.com scenario I'm sure everyone would be (rightfully) yelling about ASBs.
I've been trying to find proper statistics, but I've been unable to, so I'll have to go off my memory... but I think I have read or possibly watched somewhere that the US aid to the Soviet Union was practically nothing compared to the Soviet Union's own production output, so would the lack of a US-Soviet lend-lease actually change much? Even in the OTL version of events.
Honestly, I doubt anyone would envision the OTL Axis Powers surviving as long as they did. The combined Allied GDP was something like ten times higher, the production capabilities of the Soviets alone dwarfed all the Axis Powers combined, in 1939 France had the world's strongest army (on paper, at least). Everything was stacked against the Axis, yet they did manage to keep an impossible war going for 6 years and 1 day, even winning major victories and bringing down France and going to the outskirts of Moscow.
Now, the OTL reasons for this are numerous, such as strategies at the beginning of the war and the Allied reluctance to do anything in 1939 (obviously), to the Soviet purges and static command, or simply the Germans' luck in the 30s. Of course, I don't know how you're envisioning TTL's Second Weltkrieg, but I wonder if it is possible for even TTL's Axis to surprise everyone. (or, they already might be- like I said, I don't know how it's going to go down so maybe 4 years is impressive in and of itself).
Austria will have a lot of luck. Remember, a lot of Austria’s success is due to Allied (nee France’s) attempt to undermine a resurgent Imperial Germany. Their blissful ignoring of Austria’s rearmament and even allowance of Sozinat Austria’s military and economic expansion in Southern and Eastern Europe is mainly to allow a counterweight to Imperial Germany.People vastly overstate how lucky it was. For a lot of these so-called "roll sixes," the circumstances provide an entirely satisfactory explanation for why things went down the way they did. Both sides had a lot of luck; the Germans just used theirs better than the Allies did, during the early years.
examples
I know Army trucks, I think Ford, was major to the Soviets. The Soviets had a lot of the big stuff, but some things American products and equipment came in to fill the gaps.From what I understand, the lend-lease meant nothing to the soviets during the year 1941-1942, but afterwards, it did. Mostly in the logistical areas, you know, trains, trucks and food.
There will be Appeasement, but it’s mainly French-led to destabilize the Germans.France was not willing to go to war over it.
Collapse of the Stresa Front.
Britain backed down because they believed the Luftwaffe was much stronger than it actually was. There were shots fired, but by then the border fortifications of the Sudetenland were gone and it was hopeless.
Again, not considered worth a war over.
The response was a general rearmament.
There was a response. Neither France nor Britain were ready for war, and contrary to popular belief Germany had a large force positioned on its border with France to delay any Allied incursions so they could be dealt with when Poland was finished.
It will certainly help them recover faster in the 1920s but slow development in the 1930s. However, if they maintain a light-industry approach for too long or stay explicitly agrarian they will get rolled by two or more medium-size European powers just on account of not being able to produce or maintain a large amount of equipment (and what they do have will mostly be light equipment, not very advanced or powerful), much less move it to the front without the enormous rail network developed by the Stalinist 5 year plan. They will, however, avoid some of the food issues that plagued the early USSR, but since you explain that a significant amount of the population (I would assume the Baltics, Belarusians, and Ukrainians) is pro-axis and much of the rest is neutral, it can be assumed that more food security doesn't necessarily give the USSR vastly greater public support than OTL.Not an economist so I don’t know if it would benefit or hurt the USSR more than the path Stalin took them down. Economic wise I mean.