This seems like a needlessly aggressive and derogatory portrayal.
Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
Alternate history idea:
"Operation long jump": the Nazis plan to assassinate Stalin, Churchill and FDR. During a conference
What would be the net benefit of this attack for the allied Nations? I mean would their replacements I have benefited their respective countries?
Also, how much of a Target would that put on Otto skornsicsy back? (I know that's not how you spell it, but I'm not going to take the time to look up a Nazis name. It's the werewolf fucker)
"Operation long jump": the Nazis plan to assassinate Stalin, Churchill and FDR. During a conference
What would be the net benefit of this attack for the allied Nations? I mean would their replacements I have benefited their respective countries?
Also, how much of a Target would that put on Otto skornsicsy back? (I know that's not how you spell it, but I'm not going to take the time to look up a Nazis name. It's the werewolf fucker)
Last edited:
You would need the UK or some allied power to decide to support them for some reason. Although it is likely that reconquering Galicia is what will convince Franco to enter the Axis...
Grey Wolf
Donor
Net benefit is IMHO impossible
You can get things which are not bad, and which in the long-run turn out OK and even good, but the impact of the assassination of the main Allied leaders can never be overcome by some simple equation.
Attlee is Deputy Prime Minister, and certainly takes over in the interim. It's up to the King if he wants to ask the Tories to find another Prime Minister from among their number, or if they are willing to serve under Attlee. I imagine that Tories being Tories, once they have a new leader in place they are going to want him to be Prime Minister. There is going to be a period of uncertainty, anger, confusion, and rivalry here.
In the US it is easier to say who is taking over, but it's also a whole barrel of stinking fish because it is going to be Henry Wallace. The political establishment had come to hate him, and the later the assassination the worse things are, because under the US constitution in operation Wallace remained VP until late January 1945, even though his successor on the November 1944 ticket, Truman, would have been VP nominate for 2 months.
The Soviet Union might be even more of a mess. Molotov would be the logical stabilising successor, but whether he could establish his powerbase quickly enough to fend off threats to his own position is another question.
Grey Wolf
Donor
As long as Germany is happy with a neutral Romania, and is able to get all the supplies it needs from them, I would think that the later Romania can leave it before entering the war the better. After all, they want to occupy Bessarabia and annex it, but they don't want to have to see their forces march on Sevastopol or Kiev as part of a German army
What I'm curious about is wether the Romanians would be willing to consider joining the CP in the first place or not. AFAIK both the Romanian elite and the public were strongly francophilic. Would the opportunity to reclaim Bessarabia be enough to persuade the Romanian leadership to reconsider their position and join the (seemingly) winning CP, despite this previously mentioned francophilism? Or Romania not joining the CP (even if they do actually end up winning) is more likely?
Grey Wolf
Donor
What tends to happen is that everyone jumps in at the end. If you look at the list of Allied powers by Versailles, you have a load, especially in Central and South America, who only joined when it was obvious that the Central Powers would lose. This is even more obvious in WW2, but the creation of the United Nations skews that, so that even Turkey eventually declared war on Nazi Germany.
Romania in a Central Powers victory world is likely to be completely surrounded by victors. Not only that, but the Black Sea might also be entirely a German-and-allies lake, if we assume that Georgia, Ukraine etc are going to become independent here. IMHO the only way for Romania to both secure its own territory, its own security, and its territorial ambitions will be to join the Central Powers eventually.
What if the military had listened?
Edit: I checked and Snopes is not 100% sure this happened, but it’s not exactly the sort of thing that might end up in biography heh?
So let’s play What if…
Last edited:
Hello everyone, I have a non-SI AH TL in mind, and I need you guys' help.
My TL is a Neonpunk dystopia world, where after the Oil Crisis of 1973 and 1978 being worse than in our timeline, a Great Depression 2.0 happens, causing the world economy to collapse more or less. The Soviets still invade Afghanistan, and with a global recession, communist countries collapse as well. This Neonpunk world is far poorer and less advanced technologically than in our timeline, with late 80s-early 90s tech in the 2010s.
My main question is that in my TL, a Russian Civil War starts after the collapse of the USSR between Reds and Whites, and I was wondering which regions would side with. For example, Siberia would be pro-Red or pro-White? What about the rest of Russia?
My TL is a Neonpunk dystopia world, where after the Oil Crisis of 1973 and 1978 being worse than in our timeline, a Great Depression 2.0 happens, causing the world economy to collapse more or less. The Soviets still invade Afghanistan, and with a global recession, communist countries collapse as well. This Neonpunk world is far poorer and less advanced technologically than in our timeline, with late 80s-early 90s tech in the 2010s.
My main question is that in my TL, a Russian Civil War starts after the collapse of the USSR between Reds and Whites, and I was wondering which regions would side with. For example, Siberia would be pro-Red or pro-White? What about the rest of Russia?
If the CP wins WW1 with the Ottomans in tow, would the British have given the Ottomans the 2 battleships that they seized in 1914 or would they keep/scrap them?
Driftless
Donor
The American political commentator George Will on American style gridiron football: "Football, as I say, combines violence punctuated by committee meetings called huddles. It just replicates the worst aspect of American life."
Of course, I've heard a somewhat related comment about British field sports: "Soccer/Football is a gentleman's game played by hooligan's and Rugby is a hooligan's game played by gentlemen". (I prefer Rugby, though it would be a stretch to call me a gentleman.....
)
Grey Wolf
Donor
Well, if the Central Powers win because the High Seas Fleet gets lucky and sinks a chunk of the Grand Fleet, the ships might not be there to be reclaimed
So simple as ask in the peace treaty "UK gifts 2 battleships to Ottoman Empire as compensation", surely that will works
not sure if its too recent to ask here but anyways
In a TL in that Bill Clinton is not elected president, would the Democratic Party still become (ideologically) a majority NeoLiberal party or would some other faction take over?
In a TL in that Bill Clinton is not elected president, would the Democratic Party still become (ideologically) a majority NeoLiberal party or would some other faction take over?
Grey Wolf
Donor
So he runs against Bush but loses? Bush then passes the flame on to Quayle or someone else? The Democrats in opposition to this...?