If there is a socialist USA at the end of this it will be interesting what effects it has on the USSR internally. Shades of what Jello has hinted it with Reds!
The Falcon Cannot Hear: The Second American Civil War 1937-1944
- Thread starter Ephraim Ben Raphael
- Start date
- Status
More likely a Social Democratic US, with the Greens becoming a Farmer's Party(who'd I remind 1.36 are very anti lassieze-faire, considering their pro-farmer policies apparently include price controls in some instances, and anti-big business), that form a new rural flavored right-wing, with New Dealers and other types on the sidelines.
Regardless, yes, the USSR may be impacted in the style it is in Reds! with time, but its more likely they'll end up becoming a superpower that has few opponents who can match it.
I'm imagining a more Socialist USA, but not full blown Communist. (Healthcare, betetr works rights, better work an income payments etc)
I'm imagining something like this too, a more leftist but deomcractic USA ,not full blown Red and probably a more diverse political scene. I think the USA would slowly pick itself up, but I guess we have to see how the rest of WWII plays out.
They needed even more help? This is like being the biggest kid on the playground, and deciding you need steroids because you aren't ludicrously more powerful than the rest enough.
I mean, its not like anyone else in South America had anywhere near the population or resources to combat them, except Argentina whom weren't exactly packing cash in comparison to it.
Still, point taken.
The problem is that Brazil was only a raw material exporter, and we were extremely dependent on Europe and the US to almost anything that wasn't coffee or sugar, so you can imagine the crisis that we suffered everytime that the Northern hemisphere was at war or was suffering an economical crisis.
True, although I think Brazil's coffee crop leaves them in... well... far better circumstances than many neighbors in the region.
And what about the Spanish Gold Reserves? IOTL they were moved to the Soviet Union for "safekeeping" and of course never returned. But here the Republic won. What would be the reaction of Stalin for a request to return the gold reserves?
And talking about gold reserves, where are the US ones? It was mentioned that the bulk of the gold reserve was moved by McArthur for safekeeping but a small percentage was captured by the Whites in 1937. What happen to the gold after the fall of Washington? Hidden in Puerto Rico, Alaska perhaps? Would we see this timeline version of Kelly's Heroes? Popular Front, Soviets and Whites soldiers stealing that gold?
And talking about gold reserves, where are the US ones? It was mentioned that the bulk of the gold reserve was moved by McArthur for safekeeping but a small percentage was captured by the Whites in 1937. What happen to the gold after the fall of Washington? Hidden in Puerto Rico, Alaska perhaps? Would we see this timeline version of Kelly's Heroes? Popular Front, Soviets and Whites soldiers stealing that gold?
More likely the Blues and such just take Alaska forcefully once the Whites are taken care of. The Khakis have virtually no power at this point, or popularity for that matter.
But where is the gold? No mention is made after the move to a secret location by the Khakis in 1937. Of course that is a question for ERB to respond.
A thought just came to me, would the T-34 and the KV-1 be produced? Without the sobering effects of the Winter War and facing the pathetic AT guns of the Japanese instead we could see the Soviets believing their tank forces were ok.
I can see the combat test of the KV-1, the SMK and the T-100 that occurred IOTL in Finland happening in Manchuria but here the weak armor of the other two types will not be as exposed. However, IMO the KV-1 still be the winner because really they were a better overall tank compared with their competition.
But what about the T-34? IOTL some of the conservative members of the Red Army lobbied for continued production of the T-26 and the BT series and wait for the further development of the design before starting production. They were worried by some of the weaknesses of the design and the high production cost of the T-34. IOTL the Winter War and the Battle of France changed their minds and the thumbs up was given to start production in September 1940. But here both drivers don't exists. The current tanks designs are doing the job versus the Japanese and the Germans tanks didn't roll through France in a month.
Could we be seeing one of the first weakness of the Soviets ITTL? Production of the T-34 delayed to maybe late 1941?
I can see the combat test of the KV-1, the SMK and the T-100 that occurred IOTL in Finland happening in Manchuria but here the weak armor of the other two types will not be as exposed. However, IMO the KV-1 still be the winner because really they were a better overall tank compared with their competition.
But what about the T-34? IOTL some of the conservative members of the Red Army lobbied for continued production of the T-26 and the BT series and wait for the further development of the design before starting production. They were worried by some of the weaknesses
of the design and the high production cost of the T-34. IOTL the Winter War and the Battle of France changed their minds and the thumbs up was given to start production in September 1940. But here both drivers don't exists. The current tanks designs are doing the job versus the Japanese and the Germans tanks didn't roll through France in a month. Could we be seeing one of the first weakness of the Soviets ITTL? Production of the T-34 delayed to maybe late 1941?
Last edited:
A thought just came to me, would the T-34 and the KV-1 would be produced? Without the sobering effects of the Winter War and facing the pathetic AT guns of the Japanese instead we could see the Soviets believing their tank forces were ok.
I can see the combat test of the KV-1, the SMK and the T-100 that occurred IOTL in Finland happening in Manchuria but here the weak armor of the other two types will not be as exposed. However, IMO the KV-1 still be the winner because really they were a better overall tank compared with their competition.
But what about the T-34? IOTL some of the conservative members of the Red Army lobbied for continued production of the T-26 and the BT series and wait for the further development of the design before starting production. They were worried by some of the weaknesses
Could we be seeing one of the first weakness of the Soviets ITTL? Production of the T-34 delayed to maybe late 1941?
Problems.
1. They'd still see that armored warfare played an integral role in France, even if the German attack took longer, something they'd take into account,
2. Whose to say Japan won't try importing better AT weapons from Fascist Italy?
3. The American Civil War offers... interesting lessons here.
The third matters, because someone commented that conflict apparently shows AT weapons are more efficient than tanks, although I can't remember what it was in relation to I admit.
This matters because could this perhaps influence worldwide anti-tank doctrine?
On a side note, by the time the Germans attack... they'll be fighting a Soviet military that's a bit more seasoned than in OTL, to say the least. And one that has learned its fair share of painful lessons.
All goods points but the T-34 production IOTL was based in the terrible performance in the Winter War and the final go was due to the Blitz in France. Here even with the Japanese acquiring more powerful AT guns(the one available in 1939 would be the 47mm gun IIRC) the KV-1 with better armor is better response to defeat this weapons.
ITTL the armor forces seems to be used in the role of the cavalry (flank the enemy, hold them in place and wait for the infantry to destroy them) or as infantry support so far. That would IMO precludes the production of the T-34 to a later date as historical because there is no need to rush the design ( Germany was bug down in France and seems they will be moving in the direction of Spain next) and the cost of production. Also the cost of switching production lines to a new design in what it seems a major war (war with Japan is going into the second year IIRC)could work against the starting of production of the T-34 in September 1940 as historically.
True, however couldn't Germany very well be delayed until the Soviets have the T-34 ready? I say this because if they try attacking Spain... that's a slog that going to take a year, at minimum, either way.
The longer Germany waits to launch TTL version of Barbarossa the worse shape they will be IMO. Heck, they maybe are fighting an better protected, three man turret T-34 by then.
And what about Admiral Darlan in France? Commander of the French navy IOTL and I guess in this one too; he was IOTL even more willing to cooperate militarily with Germany, even more so than Laval, and he was one of the most vocals supporters of the Protocols of Paris in 1941. It was just chance that he was in North Africa at the time of Torch and now is remember as the one that could had been leader of the Free France except for his assassination in late 1942.
Could we see Darlan try to get something similar to the Protocols ITTL? He was a virulent Anglophobe and would not be a stranger to help the Germans if they get even better terms in further negotiations after the Armistice.
Perhaps production of S-35 and S-40 Cavalry tanks for Germany in exchange for lower reparations? Even "volunteers" to fight the Reds in Spain and Russia? Selling S-40 tanks to the Japanese?
IMO very difficult that you get anything better than they are getting now. Hitler was against anything that could help France rearm again and ERB already stated Hitler is a little more unhinged here than IOTL. But would be interesting to see a more active France so early in the War. Perhaps France with the Fascists and Italy with the Allies?
Also what are the exact borders of demarcation in France? If the Germans have no direct border with Spain the point of trying to attack Spain will be moot. If they want to punish Spain Germany would be forced to give concessions to the rump France just to be able to move troops for a jump start to Spain. And having so much of your supply lines controlled by the French would be IMO a VERY bad idea. Either you get France to be a junior partner or mind as well neuter France as much as you could and move East.
Could we see Darlan try to get something similar to the Protocols ITTL? He was a virulent Anglophobe and would not be a stranger to help the Germans if they get even better terms in further negotiations after the Armistice.
Perhaps production of S-35 and S-40 Cavalry tanks for Germany in exchange for lower reparations? Even "volunteers" to fight the Reds in Spain and Russia? Selling S-40 tanks to the Japanese?
IMO very difficult that you get anything better than they are getting now. Hitler was against anything that could help France rearm again and ERB already stated Hitler is a little more unhinged here than IOTL. But would be interesting to see a more active France so early in the War. Perhaps France with the Fascists and Italy with the Allies?
Also what are the exact borders of demarcation in France? If the Germans have no direct border with Spain the point of trying to attack Spain will be moot. If they want to punish Spain Germany would be forced to give concessions to the rump France just to be able to move troops for a jump start to Spain. And having so much of your supply lines controlled by the French would be IMO a VERY bad idea. Either you get France to be a junior partner or mind as well neuter France as much as you could and move East.
Last edited:
And what about Admiral Darlan in France? Commander of the French navy IOTL and I guess in this one too; he was IOTL even more willing to cooperate militarily with Germany, even more so than Laval, and he was one of the most vocals supporters of the Protocols of Paris in 1941. It was just chance that he was in North Africa at the time of Torch and now is remember as the one that could had been leader of the Free France except for his assassination in late 1942.
Could we see Darlan try to get something similar to the Protocols ITTL? He was a virulent Anglophobe and would not be a stranger to help the Germans if they get even better terms in further negotiations after the Armistice.
Perhaps production of S-35 and S-40 Cavalry tanks for Germany in exchange for lower reparations? Even "volunteers" to fight the Reds in Spain and Russia? Selling S-40 tanks to the Japanese?
IMO very difficult that you get anything better than they are getting now. Hitler was against anything that could help France rearm again and ERB already stated Hitler is a little more unhinged here than IOTL. But would be interesting to see a more active France so early in the War. Perhaps France with the Fascists and Italy with the Allies?
Also what are the exact borders of demarcation in France? If the Germans have no direct border with Spain the point of trying to attack Spain will be moot. If they want to punish Spain Germany would be forced to give concessions to the rump France just to be able to move troops for a jump start to Spain. And having so much of your supply lines controlled by the French would be IMO a VERY bad idea. Either you get France to be a junior partner or mind as well neuter France as much as you could and move East.
I wonder though, does Germany need to knock Spain out? I mean if they can at lest make France neutral, the British will no longer have a front against Germany and they could divert their remaining resources towards fighting the USSR (I am assuming that Hitler will not abandon his plans to conquer the East as it was his primary objective). I have a feeling though that the Soviets are going to be a much tougher nut for the Germans to crack this time around.
Last edited:
I really don't think "need" enters into it. They've defied Hitler, they share a border, they're weak latin types who can't stand up to Aryan Men In Aryan Tanks. Send in the panzers!
What do you mean there are mountains in the way? Treason! Shoot them! Send in more men!
The problem is I don't think they do share a border. The French Government is in Bordeaux, the only way the Germans share a border with Spain IMO is if the areas under control of the French are separated by some kind of corridor.
If the Germans want to attack Spain they have to treat France very differently compared to OTL.
True, I was getting carried away there.
Buried beneath the rhetoric though is a point: I just can't see Hitler tolerating the existence of an allied state in mainland Europe, rationality, diplomacy and strategy be damned.
His generals may try and delay him, but sooner rather than later he'll be demanding some kind of corridor or right of transit to "restore the legitimate government" of Spain.
Last edited:
- Status