Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
Grey Wolf
Donor
IMHO it would depend on how much of a state-within-a-state the SS was by this time. One plan I saw was to give them Burgundy to directly administer. Their loyalty might ultimately be to the Fuhrer but with Hitler dead, there is no Fuhrer except by his will, and if it is contested then I can't see the logic of them obeying an anti-SS Fuhrer
What percentage of the German population were members of the Nazi Party by 1945? I'm asking for a story idea I have.
McPherson
Banned
Best estimates (American data) were 7% in 1940 were formally registered. 10-12% in 1941-1945 were formally enrolled and maybe were active as Nazis during those years of the war. Functionally, many unregistered Germans may have identified with the policies of the criminal regime and the politics of the Berlin maniac until they were persuaded at bayonet point to change their minds. That number, unfortunately, is very ill defined. The rule of thirds might apply; in which 1/3 support, 1/3 oppose and 1/3 refuse to commit to a side.
Grey Wolf
Donor
It would be worth noting that in some professions if you were not a member of the Nazi Party you could either not hold a job, or you would never get advancement. Also, as the war progressed, anyone in a high-level technical capacity basically had to join the Nazi Party to hold onto their job. In addition, they probably also ended up getting dragooned into the SS.
At a guess, it's probably to do with relative ease of access. Looking at what's labelled the 'average minimum extent of sea ice' - that extends a lot further out from 30°W to 180°W/E. Although a lot of resupply can be done by air, I guess there's still some which needs to be done by sea, so the less sea ice a ship has to go through before getting to land, the better. Couple that with the fact that from 75°W to 180°W/E the Southern Ocean blends straight into the Pacific Ocean - in other words, there's no land for a long way, going north - I guess that it's just easier (relatively speaking) to get to and resupply the bases where they're shown.
That's all just guesswork on my part though.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Thank you
I am trying to get my head round Antarctica for my story, and it seems to me that the whole peninsular leading up towards Tierra del Fuego must be the area that Attenborough reported on lichen in the rocks, and where there is a church? But no bases?
If an imperial power owned Patagonia/Araucania and claimed that area, what realistically could they do there?
Driftless
Donor
Could some nation controlling both Tierra del Fuego and the Antarctic Penninsula make an extravagant sovereignty claim over the Cape Horn waters?
Grey Wolf
Donor
That's my plan
Trying to work out HOW other claims go is very hard. The Australia/Aotearoa coast is next nearest, but is about 2 1/2 times as far, but nowhere else even registers in closeness
Driftless
Donor
Think of China's current belligerent claims on the Spratly Islands. They're closest to the Philippines by quite a distance. Vietnam, Brunei, Borneo/Malaysia are all much closer than China as well. It's the neighborhood tough guy sticking a thumb in everyone's eyeThat's my plan
Trying to work out HOW other claims go is very hard. The Australia/Aotearoa coast is next nearest, but is about 2 1/2 times as far, but nowhere else even registers in closeness
Grey Wolf
Donor
OTL you could claim South Africa was NEAR but it's not, Australia etc is not really, the only NEAR place and that's pushing it is Tierra del Fuego and what pushes it is the non-ice period of the year
The rest of the continent, the other 8 or so major powers are gonna claim
I have no idea what happens within the inner circle and the South Pole?
I think Nixon would win but by a razor-thin margin. Of course, this is if Wallace decides to run like OTL. But, I could be wrong. I mean, LBJ was having a 50% approval rating by 1968.
Theoretically, what could happen if there was an Italian civil war in 1946? Let me explain: after the 1946 referendum that abolished the monarchy, some monarchists were hotheaded and wanted Umberto II to go against the referendum results and stay in control. Would we see a civil war in Italy around 1946? I would see it as Southern Italy (who were voted for the monarchy) and Northern Italy (who voted in favor of a republic) against each other. Also, who might be the victor, and who would aid these sides?
Grey Wolf
Donor
Well, you avoid the whole calamity of the DNC and the effect on public opinion of riots in the streets...but you probably also have a slew of other protests throughout the campaign on the "LBJ LBJ How many kids have you killed today?" theme, which won't do him much good