So it hasnt been described in detailin the Germany chapter but I guess that the Civil War's Frontlines are
Prussia: Goring
Rest of Germany: Hess.
And as of December 1939, Goering is winning or has already won.

Note, the German Heer is sitting the Civil War out, I am willing to bet that they're going to let Hess and Goering batter each other into submission and then the Heer plays winner. Which probably won't go well for Goering if that's the case....
 
tbf I really do wonder how Europe would go ittl. With Germany being in a civil war rn while the USSR is still somewhat of a threat in the minds of the European nations things would be very interesting as the giant that is America won't be woken up ittl too.

I can't stress how the US being isolationist would change things. Without the US things after WWII would be very different, and the lack of the US would mean that Europe would have to stand against the USSR without the muscle that is the US. Maybe we see America do stuff in Latin America if we see USSR intervention in the area but otherwise they'd continue to focus inwards, which would be very interesting.

I wonder if the US would play the position as China ittl as the up and coming power in the seventies/eighties as Pax Britannia erodes.
 
Also with no American assisstance and the USSR not being part of the war I wonder how would the communists pan out. Perhaps we will see them claim the north. Perhaps we will see them conquer all of China. Or they get destroyed. I really want to know how China ends up because this world means that China could become a lot of different things.

Taiwan too. Would the brits make it a dominion/occupied area? Would they give it back to the Japanese? Or the Chinese?
 
Thanks Sealtherealdeal for the update. It was a nice surprise as I had caught up to the story just last month. Update when you can and feel inspired. We will be happy with what you are willing to share.
 
tbf I really do wonder how Europe would go ittl. With Germany being in a civil war rn while the USSR is still somewhat of a threat in the minds of the European nations things would be very interesting as the giant that is America won't be woken up ittl too.

I can't stress how the US being isolationist would change things. Without the US things after WWII would be very different, and the lack of the US would mean that Europe would have to stand against the USSR without the muscle that is the US. Maybe we see America do stuff in Latin America if we see USSR intervention in the area but otherwise they'd continue to focus inwards, which would be very interesting.

I wonder if the US would play the position as China ittl as the up and coming power in the seventies/eighties as Pax Britannia erodes.
USSR is actually coming off better than OTL: no massive devastation to it's country due to Barbarossa killing some 20 million of it's people, no further casualties due to not driving towards Berlin and even no massive troop and money drain that would be propping up the Warsaw Pact nations. They're doing pretty cozy given their more immediate threat in the form of Germany is immobilized for the foreseeable future and the Western Allied bloc is too busy in Japan, I expect the USSR to enforce it's claims over the Baltics, Finland, Bessarabia and the Eastern bits of Poland with them then turning their focus unto Asia and both supplying Mao's guerrillas(which will be even more given there's no distraction due to German invasion) as well as preparing for Japan to grow weak enough in order to sweep into Sakhalin, Manchuria and Korea and get a nice seat at the negotiation table.
 
Goes to show the enemy always gets a vote. If it hadn't been for Samejima getting cold feel from that avgas fire, things would have been a disaster rather than a mere painful embarrassment. Perhaps it's also a sign of Japan's poor damage control, that getting the fire under control quickly is not an option?
 
USSR is actually coming off better than OTL: no massive devastation to it's country due to Barbarossa killing some 20 million of it's people, no further casualties due to not driving towards Berlin and even no massive troop and money drain that would be propping up the Warsaw Pact nations. They're doing pretty cozy given their more immediate threat in the form of Germany is immobilized for the foreseeable future and the Western Allied bloc is too busy in Japan, I expect the USSR to enforce it's claims over the Baltics, Finland, Bessarabia and the Eastern bits of Poland with them then turning their focus unto Asia and both supplying Mao's guerrillas(which will be even more given there's no distraction due to German invasion) as well as preparing for Japan to grow weak enough in order to sweep into Sakhalin, Manchuria and Korea and get a nice seat at the negotiation table.

France (that have treaty with basically all the easter europe nations) and Italy (that see the balkans are his sphere of influence) are not immobilizated and frankly at the moment the Red Army still suffer from the consequences of the stalinist purges
 
France (that have treaty with basically all the easter europe nations) and Italy (that see the balkans are his sphere of influence) are not immobilizated and frankly at the moment the Red Army still suffer from the consequences of the stalinist purges
Both are too far away and France especially would need troops to better defend Indochina not to mention their army would be suffering from the same OTL issues of being too stuck in WW1 defensive doctrine, Italy has a better shot but even them are still several leagues away from a place like the Baltics or Poland and neither those two have any meaningful way to actually damage the USSR beyond inciting some countries such as Romania to resist, Poland is the better candidate of this but even they would have their own issues that would make them unable to deal with the Soviets, who would have the advantage of only wanting a few areas instead of a full on conquest.
 
Both are too far away and France especially would need troops to better defend Indochina not to mention their army would be suffering from the same OTL issues of being too stuck in WW1 defensive doctrine, Italy has a better shot but even them are still several leagues away from a place like the Baltics or Poland and neither those two have any meaningful way to actually damage the USSR beyond inciting some countries such as Romania to resist, Poland is the better candidate of this but even they would have their own issues that would make them unable to deal with the Soviets, who would have the advantage of only wanting a few areas instead of a full on conquest.
Ehm we are talking about Eastern Europe not Australia they can reach them quickly...relative at the times and while Indochina is important, Europe is more important and frankly the French army had the capacity to reinforce indochina and make a show of force in eastern europe , regarding the tattics, well it's not that at the moment the Red Army is that innovative juggernaut that can easily swat away everyone and had a lot of issues thanks for the most part of the man in charge
Regarding damaging the URSS well there is always Operation Pike-like operation from the airfield of Syria, plus putting bombers in the menaced nations. not considering that OTL show in Finland and Poland were not that great in term of performance for the Soviets
 
Goes to show the enemy always gets a vote. If it hadn't been for Samejima getting cold feel from that avgas fire, things would have been a disaster rather than a mere painful embarrassment. Perhaps it's also a sign of Japan's poor damage control, that getting the fire under control quickly is not an option?
Its probably just smarter to run when you're a giant flaming target even if it wasn't threatening to sink the ship alone at that moment, being vulnerable to attack and also the other mitigating factors involved in running the ship/ entire ensemble of Japanese ships whilst already having done way more damage to the enemy.... it just is smarter to leave while you're ahead, even if you're mad you got a rock in your eye (after you just RPGed your enemies home) lmao
 
Ehm we are talking about Eastern Europe not Australia they can reach them quickly...relative at the times and while Indochina is important, Europe is more important and frankly the French army had the capacity to reinforce indochina and make a show of force in eastern europe , regarding the tattics, well it's not that at the moment the Red Army is that innovative juggernaut that can easily swat away everyone and had a lot of issues thanks for the most part of the man in charge
Regarding damaging the URSS well there is always Operation Pike-like operation from the airfield of Syria, plus putting bombers in the menaced nations. not considering that OTL show in Finland and Poland were not that great in term of performance for the Soviets
There was a reason that possible idea was dropped from the Allies plans beyond the USSR becoming a ally in OTL: It was not feasible in the slightest and even the most optimistic results had the Soviets rebuilding their factories farther away from the bombers range as well as increasing the amount of AA artillery to deal with it, so already that is out of the question. As for actual troop movements, France would need to still spend a good time in either somehow getting access via Germany or disembarking troops in a friendly location to hope to reach somewhere near to the USSR, Italy would have a slightly easier time with it but again, short of a coalition, they would have no way to actually threaten the USSR or even keep their forces supplied for such a massive operation, especially if it's towards somewhere like the Baltics.

And while I'll not get much into it, the purge effects were exaggerated given the great majority of officers were put in charge again and the troubles the Soviet army had were harkening back even before the Stalin years and would needed to be dealt in a institutionalized manner instead of "the right people are in charge", of course I'm not saying that the Soviet army won't be the same powerhouse it was OTL but it's still enough for a "short war" or a small nation like Romania or the Baltics, Finland was more of a case of a lack of preparation and arrogance by the Red Army given that once Timonsheko was put in charge, the Finns began losing VERY fast. Really only Poland could match the USSR and it's likely the western allies will support them not much with troops(given Britain is busy in the far east and France is France) but with material that will definitely help out.
 
There was a reason that possible idea was dropped from the Allies plans beyond the USSR becoming a ally in OTL: It was not feasible in the slightest and even the most optimistic results had the Soviets rebuilding their factories farther away from the bombers range as well as increasing the amount of AA artillery to deal with it, so already that is out of the question. As for actual troop movements, France would need to still spend a good time in either somehow getting access via Germany or disembarking troops in a friendly location to hope to reach somewhere near to the USSR, Italy would have a slightly easier time with it but again, short of a coalition, they would have no way to actually threaten the USSR or even keep their forces supplied for such a massive operation, especially if it's towards somewhere like the Baltics.
Nope is not already out of the question, it will simply be done and sure the soviets will rebuild their oil productions facilities farther away and put more AA but it will take a lot of time to do that and during that time (and after thanks to distances) Soviet production will be ampered
France don't need to get anywhere near the URSS it need to get in Romania to support her and this can be achieved using Jugoslavia another nation of the Little Entente plus Balkan Pact or Poland that have a mutual defence treaty with Romania
And while I'll not get much into it, the purge effects were exaggerated given the great majority of officers were put in charge again and the troubles the Soviet army had were harkening back even before the Stalin years and would needed to be dealt in a institutionalized manner instead of "the right people are in charge", of course I'm not saying that the Soviet army won't be the same powerhouse it was OTL but it's still enough for a "short war" or a small nation like Romania or the Baltics, Finland was more of a case of a lack of preparation and arrogance by the Red Army given that once Timonsheko was put in charge, the Finns began losing VERY fast. Really only Poland could match the USSR and it's likely the western allies will support them not much with troops(given Britain is busy in the far east and France is France) but with material that will definitely help out.

Yep when the German invaded and the URSS was in very dire straits not when launching an offensive war and Romania had built a pretty strong defensive line at the border, OTL accepted the deal due to basically being left alone as France fallen, ITTL France but also Italy are still on the game of keeping the Soviet at bay and will help plus France is France doesn't mean anything, Paris will help as it need Poland for strategic reason; and frankly while Timoshenko leadership helped it was more the case of Finland having being grinded out and being not capable to replenish his loss even thanks to Germany blocking a lot of supply than the soviets having that stellar performances.
The soviet army become a powerhouse after the German invasion had eliminated a lot of dead wood and the desperate situation had forced everyone to resolve hte institutionalized problem ASAP, in this situation? Good luck in do it, expecially with Stalin and his regular Purge and style of command
 
Best case scenario, Stalin likely won't be ready for war until at least 1944 - probably more like 1950.

Which means that Europe has time for them to get their shit together.
 
Best case scenario, Stalin likely won't be ready for war until at least 1944 - probably more like 1950.

Which means that Europe has time for them to get their shit together.
Stalin also won't start any offensive actions (even once his country is ready) if there's peace. He only ever picked on small countries when great powers were distracted, or when he hoped they would tolerate it (and backed down when the USA refused to concede, in Iran and Berlin)
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Talk to us about the economy in this world.

About several economies.

The economy in wartime Japan, and how its production and inter-island and island to mainland shipping of resources is going.

The Chinese economy, and how much inflation it is suffering.

About the British Empire's economy. I imagine that the war effort in Britain, the Dominions and the colonial empire has basically eliminated the unemployment problem! It's probably helping to alleviate unemployment problems in Eire. But I also imagine the war, and the consumption rates of war materiel, ammunition, military spares, harsh sea and tropical environment, is demanding full throttle defense production, wreaking some havoc on the budget, creating some instances of consumer shortages and probably requiring some industrial and economic planning and even some forms of industrial/consumer rationing.

About the American economy. I imagine Britain is outsourcing raw materials too expensive, inconvenient or simply unobtainable within imperial limits offshore, to underused industrial capacity of the United States, to the raw material producers of Latin America. This is probably doing a great deal to improve employment figures in the USA and raise industrial indices and corporate profit margins. Maybe to raise industrial wages and buying power. The US is almost certainly kicking up its own Naval and air and limited ground force recapitalization up a notch as a precautionary measure, but is not in any sort of sacrifice mode involving notable tax increases or rationing, or willingness to borrow without caution. What is the economic bottom-line of the "stimulus" of British and secondhand Chinese war orders. Is it turning the Depression quickly into a bad memory, almost turning the American standard of living of the late 1930s into a preview of the 1950s standard of living, or perhaps more like a rehash of the late 1920s standard of living, lacking the class-leveling effects of mass military service and the GI Bill?

How are the economies of continental Europe doing? Hitler was overheating the German economy for a few years there with his fast rearmament program. But now Germany is in Civil War, which kind of impairs its ability to enjoy the fruits of prior economic investment, or to widely make profit from exports and shares profits. Mussolini had no special Depression-fighting recipes and peaked a bit early in his rearmament and spent funds on expensive fighting in Ethiopia and Spain. But is he making any good business for Italy out of the demands of the world-spanning Anglo-Japanese war? How about the economies of France, the Low Countries, Iberia, Scandinavia, the Balkans?
 
Last edited:
How about the economies of France

France's economy is frankly in the shitter. Its 1937 right?

In 1932, the Great Depression took the French economy kicked the shit out of it, then shook it until its lunch money came out, then tossed it into a dryer on tumble dry. To put it bluntly, their economy imploded so fucking hard that they country needed a bailout.
 
Top