Well a true believer could get the blame anyway...Do we open a book on who will lead the Alt-Valkyrie?
I'm thinking it might be a "true believer" rather than the military.
Kaltenbrunner for example.
Kaltenbrunner and Skorzeny could be an interesting mix.
The Holocaust is actually perfectly rational... If you're a Nazi (and thus, utterly bugnuts.) Because, see, to the Nazi mind, the Holocaust isn't this... Seperate thing done alongisde the War. It is the War. The Second World War, from the Nazi perspective, is a war against Jewry. And so the massacre of Jewish people isn't a fun side-gig; it's actively the point of the wor.One area where rationality and efficiency were utterly ignored was in the prosecution of the Holocaust. Not only was the mass murder being carried out at Auschwitz and other places an atrocity, but it was also an absurdity. A nation where the propaganda spoke of ‘total war’ had constructed vast a vast mechanized system of murder that consumed huge amounts of material resources and vitally needed transportation. Trains that might have might have moved coal or iron, or supplies for the Ostheer, were instead carrying helpless men women and children to a brutal death. Many of those people so gleefully murdered by the Nazi state might have laboured in German factories instead, though given the treatment of slave labour in German industry this would just have been a slow death for most of the Jewish population selected for work rather than immediate murder.
I couldn't give this a like of course but I pretty much agree, for Hitler and Himmler and a lot of others it was indeed the war.The Holocaust is actually perfectly rational... If you're a Nazi (and thus, utterly bugnuts.) Because, see, to the Nazi mind, the Holocaust isn't this... Seperate thing done alongisde the War. It is the War. The Second World War, from the Nazi perspective, is a war against Jewry. And so the massacre of Jewish people isn't a fun side-gig; it's actively the point of the wor.
With no armistice and no Allied presence, Italy likely ends up either occupied and made a Republic without plebiscite or falling to Communism because of a stronger Wehrmacht presence and a worse overall situation partisans have become more radicalized.
With no armistice and no Allied presence, Italy likely ends up either occupied and made a Republic without plebiscite or falling to Communism because of a stronger Wehrmacht presence and a worse overall situation partisans have become more radicalized.
Post war Europe will be different, and I do have plan for Italy and elsewhere, much of which will spring from the Allies making a landing in France in 1943 rather than 44.I think falling to Titoist style Communism sounds likely
From this site ( https://mulberryharbour.info/ ) it looks to me like they were still testing the Mulberry Harbours in May 1943, up in Scotland (the letter noting the arrival of the 'military working party' gives a date of 14th May, 1943.)Post war Europe will be different, and I do have plan for Italy and elsewhere, much of which will spring from the Allies making a landing in France in 1943 rather than 44.
Well I've decided that since they know they will be landing much sooner they've focused on having one ready in time for the day.From this site ( https://mulberryharbour.info/ ) it looks to me like they were still testing the Mulberry Harbours in May 1943, up in Scotland (the letter noting the arrival of the 'military working party' gives a date of 14th May, 1943.)
So no Mulberry Harbours for a mid-1943 French landing...
If you rush stuff without completing testing you get a good chance of ending up with something like the Covenanter tank...Well I've decided that since they know they will be landing much sooner they've focused on having one ready in time for the day.
Well it would be fair to say there will be quality control issues that affect the use by date. BTW D-Day was a bit of a pain because I had to go digging through weather records for a date with similar time and tides to June the 6th 1944, and at the same time I wasn't describing the day as blue skies and sunshine when it was p...ersintenly raining.If you rush stuff without completing testing you get a good chance of ending up with something like the Covenanter tank...
This should be... 'interesting'.
Edit:
I think the Americans showed in the original timeline what you could do in terms of unloading smaller stuff, with just the breakwaters to create a calmer water zone, after they lost the Omaha mulberry.
Can't put a vehicle ashore unless it's saltwater proof without a harbour, but you can lighter a lot of smaller stuff with amphibious vehicles if the water isn't too choppy.Well it would be fair to say there will be quality control issues that affect the use by date. BTW D-Day was a bit of a pain because I had to go digging through weather records for a date with similar time and tides to June the 6th 1944, and at the same time I wasn't describing the day as blue skies and sunshine when it was p...ersintenly raining.
ETA: Also I had thought about the breakwater idea previously and I think I will work it in as an expedient.
The focus prior to D-Day will be the DEI as yes they have had to dial things back, but given the situation in SEA its not that much of a help to the Japanese.Can't put a vehicle ashore unless it's saltwater proof without a harbour, but you can lighter a lot of smaller stuff with amphibious vehicles if the water isn't too choppy.
Are the Gilbert & Marshalls campaigns of the OTL cancelled if the entire amphibious assault craft production is going to be needed for Europe for 1943?
(If so, good news for Imperial Japan's defensive perimeter, or at least it would be if things weren't going pear-shaped in Southeast Asia...)
They largely used ships and aimed to disembark in ports, which proved expensive in ships even IOTL. The major thing they developed for amphibious landings after that was the Seibel Ferry and that was a dubious proposition if there swells and moderate seas.What did the Germans use to land in Norway?
I assume that must have taught some lessons? Even minor ones?
The Germans also used airborne forcesThey largely used ships and aimed to disembark in ports, which proved expensive in ships even IOTL. The major thing they developed for amphibious landings after that was the Seibel Ferry and that was a dubious proposition if there swells and moderate seas.
You are forgetting the Marine Fahrprahm (MFP)They largely used ships and aimed to disembark in ports, which proved expensive in ships even IOTL. The major thing they developed for amphibious landings after that was the Seibel Ferry and that was a dubious proposition if there swells and moderate seas.
mostly used in the fighting against the soviets on the eastern front.You are forgetting the Marine Fahrprahm (MFP)