Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread

What if Clinton didn't order Marines to no longer be stationed on navy ships (not as expeditionary forces, but guards, etc.)

First thing that comes to mind, perhaps some jarheads prevent or minimize the casualties and damages done to the USS. Cole? I'd imagine it would also help with antipiracy ops.
 
So I just ran across this article about a Canadian training team in WW2 that mimicked German uniforms and tactics. How common was this kind of thing at the time? Did the German Army have 'British' troops in *cough* imperfect uniforms running around training their troops? Was it an effective way to train, a horrible idea, or somewhere in between?
 
So I just ran across this article about a Canadian training team in WW2 that mimicked German uniforms and tactics. How common was this kind of thing at the time? Did the German Army have 'British' troops in *cough* imperfect uniforms running around training their troops? Was it an effective way to train, a horrible idea, or somewhere in between?
I did not know that. Thanks. Day not wasted. learned something new.
 
So I was reading around and came across a proposed strategy that allegedly could've secured a German victory in WWII.

In the summer of 1940, shortly after the fall of France, Hitler focuses on driving the British out of Egypt with Italy's help. He continues westward into Mesopotamia, Arabia, and Iran, bringing the Middle East under Axis rule. The Royal Navy, robbed from its ports in Alexandria, is expelled to the Red Sea, making the Mediterranean an Axis lake. Greece and Yugoslavia fall to Germany's sphere due to outside pressure, seeing that Britain can't help them, subjugating the Balkans without committing a single soldier. The British focus their strength on defending India, while Turkey (either through negotiation or conquest) grants Germany military access. The Axis now have a way into Russia's back door, and Stalin does everything he can to keep the alliance with Hitler alive. How feasible is this?
 
So I was reading around and came across a proposed strategy that allegedly could've secured a German victory in WWII.

In the summer of 1940, shortly after the fall of France, Hitler focuses on driving the British out of Egypt with Italy's help. He continues westward into Mesopotamia, Arabia, and Iran, bringing the Middle East under Axis rule. The Royal Navy, robbed from its ports in Alexandria, is expelled to the Red Sea, making the Mediterranean an Axis lake. Greece and Yugoslavia fall to Germany's sphere due to outside pressure, seeing that Britain can't help them, subjugating the Balkans without committing a single soldier. The British focus their strength on defending India, while Turkey (either through negotiation or conquest) grants Germany military access. The Axis now have a way into Russia's back door, and Stalin does everything he can to keep the alliance with Hitler alive. How feasible is this?
1. Uhm… Nope. Russia immediately goes to war and heads for Romania.
2. and the British fight onward from their SLOCS via the India Ocean and when they have lured Rommel far enough east destroy him on the Jordan. Easy to do.
3. 1 and 2 happen because the Axis don't have enough sea lift to support more than 150,000 men east of the Suez canal. The British can sustain 4x that many. End result? Numbers beats gambler's psychosis every time. House wins. Russia gets Ploesti and British reopen Med.
 
1. Uhm… Nope. Russia immediately goes to war and heads for Romania.
2. and the British fight onward from their SLOCS via the India Ocean and when they have lured Rommel far enough east destroy him on the Jordan. Easy to do.
3. 1 and 2 happen because the Axis don't have enough sea lift to support more than 150,000 men east of the Suez canal. The British can sustain 4x that many. End result? Numbers beats gambler's psychosis every time. House wins. Russia gets Ploesti and British reopen Med.
Much appreciated.
 
What if Ferruccio Lamborghini opens his company in Spain instead of Italy, how would be the Italian high-end car industry affected by it and how would Spain benefit from it...
 
I would really appreciate it if someone could help me out with the question regarding if there according to your or others research is a clear transfer of wealth from the British Empire to the United states in the 1900s?. If yes, can we track where and to what persons/banks this wealth was transferred?. Mira Wilkins’ The History of Foreign Investment in the United States to 1914 have info about this i think but i have not read it.
 
I would really appreciate it if someone could help me out with the question regarding if there according to your or others research is a clear transfer of wealth from the British Empire to the United states in the 1900s?. If yes, can we track where and to what persons/banks this wealth was transferred?. Mira Wilkins’ The History of Foreign Investment in the United States to 1914 have info about this i think but i have not read it.
I am no expert. But i do know that Britain took out huge loans from US banks in wwi to finance their war. That may be what you are looking for. But I dont know how much, of what the impact of that was.
 
I would really appreciate it if someone could help me out with the question regarding if there according to your or others research is a clear transfer of wealth from the British Empire to the United states in the 1900s?. If yes, can we track where and to what persons/banks this wealth was transferred?. Mira Wilkins’ The History of Foreign Investment in the United States to 1914 have info about this i think but i have not read it.
Baseline information. The important bits.

In 1915, a massive Anglo-French loan for $500 million was floated in the United States with the cooperation of a syndicate headed by J.P. Morgan & Co. The latter, which became in 1915 the British and French purchasing agents in the US, was increasingly influential. The Anglo-French loan was a limited success. The syndicate found buyers scarce. After 1915, more modest expedients were sought. In 1916-17, various devices were employed, including offering guaranteed UK government loans. Late in 1916, a plan championed by Morgans to issue short-term Treasury Bills in the United States was rebuffed by the Federal Reserve Board at the behest of the American President Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), who hoped refusal would force the allies to heed his mediation proposal to end the war. Wilson’s gambit failed but allied financial precariousness was exposed. The overdraft on Morgans reached the staggering figure of nearly $400 million in the spring of 1917.[25] France had reached the end of its tether. Could Britain continue? On its own account perhaps, but not paying as well for the allied accounts, at least not for long. American belligerency extricated London from the worst spectres, though it raised other fears. Would the United States supplant Britain as the dominant global financial power?[26]
Wilson was a complete idiot. Right then and there he could have dictated terms to London, and he muffed it. FDR, who was part of the Wilson Administration, remembered the missed opportunity and when the British boloed again in 1940, he was there with the knife.
 
Baseline information. The important bits.



Wilson was a complete idiot. Right then and there he could have dictated terms to London, and he muffed it. FDR, who was part of the Wilson Administration, remembered the missed opportunity and when the British boloed again in 1940, he was there with the knife.
My english is not the best, but what exactly does this mean?, a loan?, was $400 million transfered from the The Anglo-French to JP morgan?, it was JP morgans money after this?. I am looking for clear data on direct transfers of wealth to the US from the british and others.
 
My english is not the best, but what exactly does this mean?, a loan?, was $400 million transfered from the The Anglo-French to JP morgan?, it was JP morgans money after this?. I am looking for clear data on direct transfers of wealth to the US from the british and others.
As I understand it, the UK developed a line of credit, which is to say, that J.P. Morgan, underwrote with American capital, the amount of funds that Britain wanted and spent for her war effort. It was American money, not British. Payment on that LOAN was to come from future British revenues and there would be interest added to the amount of the loan, postwar. That was the agreement. Britain would repay America. This became a problem after WWI. Britain wanted to stretch out the payments and use currency inflation (a form of devaluation of pound to the dollar) to flatten out the interest levied on the outstanding balance. Harding and company wanted the loans repaid to the agreed schedule, because that was the original agreement and if the UK was able to flatten the loan interest and stretch it out, the American capital underwriters would take a net loss of investment. Back in those days, 400 million USD not repaid with interest was a HUGE hit to any economy, even the American one. Needless to say, it was a very SORE point between the US and UK right up until the crash of 1929.
 
How many WW1 and Interwar biplanes would it take to overwhelm the modern U.S Airforce and Navy through sheer numbers alone ignoring logistics and manpower issues?
 
How many WW1 and Interwar biplanes would it take to overwhelm the modern U.S Airforce and Navy through sheer numbers alone ignoring logistics and manpower issues?
However many missiles, aircraft cannon shells and 0.5'' - 5'' anti aircraft rounds the US owns + 1.
 
Top