Es Geloybte Aretz Continuation Thread

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by carlton_bach, Aug 3, 2018.

  1. Komnenos002 asdf

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    It might still have an "ethnic" component, depending on the view of Slavic peoples in the rest of Europe. But regardless, still an interesting point that the cultural views around atomic weaponry will be very different in ATL. :)
     
  2. JamesG Not James G Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    It probably won't be Slavs as a whole who are viewed negatively, as the nearby Czechs should have a positive reputation, and the Poles should be well regarded after the Germans fought a war for their freedom and they are inextricably linked into the German economy. It could be that eastern Slavs are viewed as something separate, or that Russians are viewed as having turned Asiatic.

    I look forward to finding out.
     
  3. Tibi088 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Also who will get the "honor" (and later the blame) for authorizing the atomic bombs dropped on Moscow and who knows where else. Will it be the Kaiser, the Chancellor or some military leader?
     
  4. Carnivorous Vegetarian Unknown Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2015
    What's the obsession with dropping A-bombs on capitals? Sometimes - like here - it's Moscow, sometimes it's Berlin, but there's no precedence in OTL for it, and the US could definitely gotten away with nuking Tokyo.
     
    Landser03 likes this.
  5. InMediasRes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    I think we already know that the bomb is going to drop on Moscow ITTL. And from what I recall Germany's situation in the war against Russia will be much more desperate than the USA vs. Japan. If there's only 100km between the Russian army and Berlin, you are in a very different position than the USA who had essentially already won the war for all intents and purposes. You presumably only have one or at most two bombs available in the medium term. So you got to make it count. Nuking two smaller cities in the hopes that Russia gets the message could very well be considered too risky.
     
    rommel12 likes this.
  6. Carnivorous Vegetarian Unknown Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2015
    If the Russians are 100km away from Berlin, then I doubt nuking Moscow, or anything else more than 1500km east of them, will make them turn around before the last bullet is spent.
     
  7. avernite Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Eh, I recall Germany in the process of winning but too angry and annoyed by the grind to wait around for it when they have the big bomb.

    I guess that's what happens when the spoilers are old enough we start forgetting the details :D
     
  8. Tibi088 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Im not sure if this timeline Moscow became the Capital.
     
    haider najib likes this.
  9. Jürgen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2016
    Hitting Moscow makes a lot of sense, it show a long reach, while at the same time it hit a major industrial center and a even greater transportation hub.
     
  10. haider najib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2016
    Location:
    Has no idea
    Whats the situation with denmark? They tend to be very close to britian and russia. Germany is dominates the east now but have been bleed, france is wants war at some point. UK is now being forced out of isolationism.
     
  11. HanEmpire Delicious

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    Location:
    The Land of Eh
    They'd have to make Moscow the capital. Petrograd is very exposed to German lightning strikes without Finland, Poland, and the Tribaltica provinces there to act as protection.
     
  12. altamiro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Location:
    Where the streets have no names
    Moscow as a whole, even in the 1940s, is far too large and spread out to be destroyed by a single 20-30 kt nuclear warhead. There is neither one single rail yard to be taken out, nor one single industrial facility. Even under the most favourable conditions for the attacker, a Hiroshima size nuclear bomb will destroy an area about 1 km across. Just use https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ to see the estimated effects. It is effective as a psychological weapon or to decapitate the country, but the immediate military effort of a single nuclear weapon of that size on a capital city is far from sufficient.
     
  13. JohnOfNottingham Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2014
    Location:
    Here and there and everywhere
    Didn't it effectively become capital during the first German-Russian war when the Tsar moved there in light of the revoltiness of the Petersburgers, then also considering it to be much more suitable to the traditional land-tsar-orthodoxy russia?
     
  14. haider najib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2016
    Location:
    Has no idea
    Then hit for the prestige/culture/ psychological impact. Hitting moscow but not destroying it has more impact than hitting and destroying Smolensk, Novgorod, tsaritsyn, Ufa and Kazan. Moscow is third rome (not really), hitting it would pause russia and make them think.
     
  15. haider najib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2016
    Location:
    Has no idea
    that was Nicolas with religious stuff wars over Petrograd would be made the capital again as its no longer under threat.
     
  16. carlton_bach Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Location:
    Altona, Occupied Denmark
    For a given value of 'rule'. These were not the most organised people, and many of the important decisions get made by the traditional elite - military officers, top-tier civil service, court officials.

    Nothing on this level gets decided without the emperor's signature. Of course it will be talked about in the general staff and Militärkabinett, but he says yes or no.

    Not Moscow. Too risky to decapitate a frangible, strategically 'deep' enemy at the time you want to make peace. It may be because i wrote there is peace in Europe forevermoer 'because people like to keep their capital cities'. Indeed, everyone can't help imagine what would happen if one of those bombs took out paris, london, Berlin or Rome. but I originally planned for Zarizyn to be the target. not entirely sure that's plausible, but there's no shortage.

    Yes, and it stayed that way because a) the PU have a Holy Russia thing, b) St Petersburg is too close to the Finns and Balts and c) St Petersburg is kinda not all there any more after becoming the accidental demonstration model of how a firestorm works.

    Denmark is in an uncomfortable place. Russia's not anyone to be close to. Britain is effectively their guarantor, but they still need to tread carefully, wedged in between Germany and a pro-German (and not exactly friendly) Sweden. Closely aligned with Norway as a not-exactly-pro-German state with no interest in alienating their biggest trading partner and worryingly powerful neighbour, but precious little liking for them, either. Making good money exporting agricultural products, but not exactly rich as European countries go. Very much aware there is no leeway for political manoeuvering in their place when the hammer drops.
     
  17. Jürgen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2016
    Denmark at this point are pretty much of German vassal, and they will continue the Danish foreign policy we have seen in OTL from 1864, keep Berlin happy, while making some big friends, they can use to make Berlin not take Danish obedience for granted (Russia/UK before 1917, UK in the interbellum, USA/UK 1945-2016, and now we’re turning to France). That policy was a pretty big success in OTL even with the occupation. In this timeline it’s likely just as great success, Denmark have likely been one of the main food supplier to Germany under their war with Russia (similar to under both World Wars), as Denmark have likely sold food for German bonds or state loans. Denmark will likely invest of those money in Russia (which Denmark did in WWI).

    But there’s something which may cause problem between Denmark and Germany again; Schleswig, Danish population was pretty stable in Schleswig under German rule, the Danes had a higher birth rate, but the Danish surplus population moved into Flensburg, where they stopped being Danes and became German Social Democrats, this also meant that Flensburg stopped being a Danish majority city, after the majority Danish areas returned to Denmark (Flensburg also stopped growing at that point). But this is a weak balance, and I could see potential problem arising there. A Flensburg which continuing growing will stay the same size as Kiel together with the greater population of a united Schleswig, this will likely result in demand of Schleswig becoming a separate province from Holstein, which will be supported by the Danish minority, and objected to by local conservatives and liberals, with SPD caught in the middle. This will create headaches in both Berlin and Copenhagen.
     
    dermitderaxt likes this.
  18. haider najib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2016
    Location:
    Has no idea
    isn't that really bad? Also russia abandoned the loans, they defaulted isn't that really bad for denmark. As far as we know only france got their bonds redeemed why would germany get denmarks bond redeemed they know how you think.

    Can Denmark not join the bountiful German empire! Why would it be any trouble for the danish gov why would they be involved they very little influence there to deal with this issue.

    Also a successful swedish military and victory in this war may mean the swedish are willing to do more, they definitely have german support so swedish politicians know can be a little more risky in how they play.

    Also how is the danish military doing do they still have a strong navy?
     
  19. Kvasir We shall overcome #EU

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Location:
    Leeds, Yorkshire, EU
    With Britain focusing on the developing quagmire in Ireland I think they will be too distracted to worry about Denmark.

    Is it possible for Denmark to turn to France? France has beef with Germany over Alsace-Lorraine and Denmark has beef with Germany over Schleswig. France will be concerned that Germany is trying to isolate them from the European market. Perhaps Belgium and Denmark could be French aligned as a counter to the Netherlands and Sweden being German aligned?

    Of course the issue there is self sacrifice. If Denmark and (to a lesser extent) Belgium chose to not engage with Mittleeuropa their economies will suffer. Would Denmark not just swallow their pride and just work with the Germans?
     
  20. avernite Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Denmark and Belgium will work with Germany, but having a counterweight around is nice when negotiating, say, who pays for railway links, who gets fishing rights where, and so on.