The Great Crusade (Reds! Part 3)

[Miss Teri]

Is there an equivalent of "Voice of America" or Radio Moscow?

 

[Edward_Elric]

Is there an equivalent of "Voice of America" or Radio Moscow?

Probably in Cuba for the capitalist side, with a name like "Havana 49" as a call-back to the 48 states.

 

[Knightmare]

Probably in Cuba for the capitalist side, with a name like "Havana 49" as a call-back to the 48 states.

I think he was referring to the USAR side of things, not the latest attempt of the exiles to bring comedy to their Red brethern up North.

 

[Marisa Kiridifferent]

Yeah,Radio Free London/Paris?

 

[Miss Teri]

Yeah,Radio Free London/Paris?

I think the BBC ( or EBC) has that function.

 

[Miss Teri]

I think he was referring to the USAR side of things, not the latest attempt of the exiles to bring comedy to their Red brethern up North.

Yeah, that's it. Like, "Public Broadcasting International" or something

 

[Marisa Kiridifferent]

I think the BBC ( or EBC) has that function.

I mean UASR broadcasting to the FBU or AFS that you seem to suggest.

 

[Aelita]

Excerpts from the AH.com thread “WI: Axis victory in the Battle of Iceland”

The Battle of Iceland is the second biggest surface engagement in the European theater, after the titanic Battle of the Eastern Mediterranean. Covered in many a movie and TV special, the stakes were suitably high, and the Comintern victory there shifted the tide in the War for the Atlantic against the Axis.

How would we reverse this outcome, and what effect would that have on the larger war? For our purposes, let’s consider a German tactical victory where they are able to inflict greater losses on Task Force 17 and disrupt the Arctic convoys significantly through devastation of Icelandic port facilities and commerce raiding. But bonus points if you can get a decisive victory.

This is a bit out of my wheelhouse, but I’ve done some reading on the subject. The battle was ultimately decided by the carriers. The Americans found the German air group first, and knocked both carriers out of action quickly. This left Vizeadmiral Fricke blind, and subject to harassing air attack. With the information advantage, his opponent intercepted his capital ships as they attempted to withdraw.

Under different circumstances, the surface engagement would have turned out differently, I think. The Germans had an additional capital ship in the engagement, and their well drilled gunnery could have reversed the outcome if the Americans hadn’t crossed the T, especially if the German air group manages to take one of them out of action.

That’s some wonderful excuseology, straight from Fricke’s memoirs.

Though I will give Fricke some credit, he’s not as keen as the other West German veterans to blame it all on the Fuhrer, and during the Cold War we ate that up and let the people who lost the war inform our doctrine for the next war, rather than studying how the winners beat them.

Ritter is German, so I suppose I need to give him some slack for his nationalism, but come on MyHonorIsLoyalty; I know for a fact you’re not German. Look, I’m not even going to ask. I’m sure there will be plenty of others who are going to take issue with your username and all that this implies.

What I will say is that what you’re talking about is pure fantasy. While I’ll grant you that the surface ship engagement is a bit more evenly matched, with similar numerical edges in capital ships, cruisers and destroyers (thanks to the wondrously short sighted Anglo-German Naval Treaty of 1934), your scenario requires the Kreigsmarine to triumph in the area is what completely outmatched in.

The Graf Zeppelin and Peter Strasser were thirty-three thousand tonne monstrosities that could barely carry 50 planes, yet were no better armored than the HMS Illustrious, which had a similar complement and armor scheme yet weighed ten thousand tonnes less. Each of the three American carriers had nearly as many planes as the whole German surface fleet! At least they removed her cruiser calibre guns after her launch. The Germans were learning quickly, but they were definitely novices at carrier aviation, and her air group and flight operations reflect that.

They took significant damage trying to achieve their mission of destroying harbor defenses at Reykjavik, so at a bare minimum to have any chance against the American carriers they’d have to 1) spot the Americans first, and before they began attacking ground targets 2) mount a successful raid against an opponent with superior radar and three times your air group that takes all flight decks out of action.

That’s a tall order.

Okay, I’ll grant you it’s difficult, but the U-483 nearly spotted Task Force 17 on its approach. It could have radioed coded messages warning Fricke of the American fleet.

Like I said, this is out of my wheelhouse, but I have done my research. The German divebombers and torpedo planes carried armament large enough to threaten capital ships, and their crews had hit battleships maneuvering at sea before, including sinking the HMS Howe.

Huh, I was unaware of that possibility. Still, I think even a successful first strike, which isn’t guaranteed even if the U-483 accurately reports the scale of the threat. The German naval fighter, the Bf 109T-3 I believe, was basically a navalized Bf-109F, which by late 1942 was in the process of being replaced in Luftwaffe units, and the T variant was pretty poorly suited for the rigors of carrier flight.

The navalized Ju 87s and the Fi 167 were too slow and vulnerable, compared to the SB2D Dervish and especially compared to the BTM Maulers that made their combat debut in this battle. The only reason why both carriers weren’t sunk outright in the attack is that most of the torpedo bombers were dispatched to attack the capital ships. The Graf Zeppelin was spared only because the Prinz Eugen put herself alongside and took three torpedoes meant for her.

The surface engagement wasn’t close at all. The numerical advantage was basically meaningless, because most of the German capital ships were, on balance, pretty poorly designed.

Let’s not forget that Germany basically put nine tenths of its surface fleet into this disastrous raid. She completed only one more capital ship later that year (which basically did nothing but be a fleet in being for the rest of the war), and scrapped the rest of Plan Z. And before we get to comparing welds, let’s point out something much more fundamental to the outcome of the war: production. From on 1934 to 1944, the Germans constructed four battleships, two battlecruisers, and two aircraft carriers. The Americans, in that same time period, constructed twenty-one battleships (I’m treating the Toledos, like their British counterparts the Revenges, as battleships because that’s what they fucking are) and over forty aircraft carriers. The British, who were no slouches either, completed ten and seventeen respectively. And that’s not counting the light and escort carriers, which were numerous, hugely important to the war effort, and of which the Germans had no counterparts.

Even if Fricke sinks the entirety of Task Force 17 down to the smallest destroyer, he won’t significantly change the balance of power in the North Atlantic. It will delay plans to smash the French and Italian fleets and probably slow the Penninsular and North Africa campaigns, and have some butterflies in the transfer of assets to the Pacific, but it won’t change the outcome.

I think you’re underselling the German battle fleet, Ma’at. The Bismarck-class made a few mistakes, notably the banded armor scheme and anemic anti-aircraft armament, but overall they were excellent ships, perhaps the best in the 45,000-ton weight range. Her 16-inch guns were virtual copies of the British BL 16-inch.

Most of these weaknesses were fixed in the Friedrich der Große, which adopted three triple turrets rather than the somewhat wasteful four twin turrets of its predecessor.

Even with the tactical surprise, the German ships endured impressively against the American ships. It took hours of pounding for both the Bismarck and Tirpitz to sink, and the rest of the fleet was able to live to fight another day.

And I think it’s most surprising that even as the victor in this battle you don’t think it’s importance. The Japanese had just blocked the Vladivostok convoy route, and if the Hanseatic raid was successful, the convoy raiding and destruction to port facilities would have forced a stoppage of all the Arctic convoys for months.

I really cannot abide this West German Lost Causer nonsense.

Hitler gambled away his entire fleet in an operation any sane admiral would have rejected as too risky. Those ships were far more effective as a fleet in being, since they tied up a huge amount of American and British naval assets. Besides Taffy 17, the WFRN had several other battleship and carriers in the Atlantic theater waiting in reserve. Once the 90 percent of the German surface fleet was safely entombed at the bottom of the ocean, they could be moved to support operations in the Mediterranean or the Pacific.

And make no mistake, they were expensive white elephants that were utterly outclassed by the ships that sunk them. The American battleships had better guns, better armor, better fire control and better AAA. And they were three knots faster. Like, I can’t stress this enough, it appears the Germans learned very little during the Interwar period of cooperation with the British, because even the Fritz the Fatwas essentially an oversized WWI battleship. She would’ve kicked ass and taken names at Jutland, but everyone else had learned a lot since that period.

She weighed nearly ten-thousand tonnes more than the Toledo, a mid/late 1920s design modified during construction for improved survivability, and yet had inferior armor protection. The only reason why Fritz survived the initial engagement is that she was fifth in the line of battle.

*nods head*

That’s great. Could you maybe explain this all to me like I’m five?

Oh my sweet flower child

Here’s a brief description of the battle. So the German fleet is heading South in the strait between Iceland and Greenland. The German aircraft carriers are attacked by American dive bombers while the American torpedo planes hunt for the German battleships. The dive bombers fill the German carrier’s flight decks with craters, making them pretty much useless, but the torpedo planes don’t locate the battleships before being forced to return.

Admiral Fricke, realizing he’s in deep shit, decides to abort the operation prematurely and pull back to safer waters because he’s smart enough to realize the carriers aren’t alone. Unfortunately for him, his battleships and cruisers are caught just before dusk by Levin’s battleships. Even worse for him, Levin’s ships have “crossed the T” on him. His battleships, running broadside, can fire all of their guns at the enemy. Fricke’s ships, steaming straight at them, can only fire a fraction of their guns.

Levin had better radar and gun directors, and his flagship, Nat Turner, achieves a firing solution on the Bismarck at nearly 30 kilometers. The Germans begin returning fire after a few minutes, but they’ve already been hit several times. Fricke tries to use his destroyers to disrupt the American line with a torpedo attack, but they’re repulsed by American cruisers.

Given the extreme range, the German battleships are at their most severe disadvantage, because they’re designed based on a much closer range brawl and have their armor arrayed for this, whereas the American ships are armored to protect against extreme range plunging fire. The two German battlecruisers are basically useless, their 38-cm shells can’t hope to penetrate any vital areas, so arguably they’d have been better off focusing down the American cruiser squadrons. Even the 41-cm guns of the battleships aren’t suited for the task, they’re too light for the task, so the German guns are mostly just damaging the superstructure and secondary armament of the American ships.

Conversely, the American 41-cm and 46-cm guns are firing much heavier shells, and they’re punching through the thinner armor of the upper belt and inadequate deck armor of the German ships. And they’re exploding in important areas of the ship. Like gun turrets or engine rooms. Worse, because of the banded armor extending across most of the German ships, the shells won’t overpenetrate even in less vital areas. They’ll explode and start flooding in those areas.

The Bismarck took the worst of it, but none of the German ships got off lightly. The Scharnhorst had both forward turrets knocked out, and she only escaped complete destruction thanks to good ammunition handling protocols and luck. The Gneisnau got a lot of her superstructure shot away as she tried to close the distance, and escaped thanks to the sacrifice of German cruiser squadron. Ol’ Fritz the Fat (I’m calling her that from now on) lost a turret, started flooding and had to deal with rampant fires and explosions in her secondary armament magazines. Tirpitz got an unlucky hit that destroyed her ability to steer, so she ended up drifting out of the battleline. After some close range pounding, she lost engine power, fire control and started foundering, and at that point her captain decided to open the seacocks and set demolition charges and scuttle her before she could be boarded.

As for Bismarck, she took the worst of it. After fifteen minutes of action she was dead in the water, and listing heavily to port, but still firing with her two functional turrets. Then a 16-inch shell struck her forward magazine and that was all she wrote.

The American ships all took damage, but very little of it was serious. I think the Michael Kohlhaas had a turret knocked out. A lot more men died on the cruisers and destroyers as they grappled to the last with their German counterparts, who were trying to secure the escape of the capital ships.

Good god…that sounds like a slaughter. How did any of them escape?

Nightfall, and the vainglorious action of her escorts laying down smokescreen and repeated torpedo attacks. Having already dealt a significant blow, Levin didn’t wish to risk anything he didn’t have to, so he disengaged and let the Germans limp away, confident that he’d be able to run them down. As it turned out, he essentially chased the Fritz straight into the jaws of the Royal Navy, who were more than happy to nab a much needed morale booster.

 

[tuxer]

UPDATE!

 

[Knightmare]

The Kriegsmarine must've been pissed when that news got out.

 

[Marisa Kiridifferent]

TTL's "Sink the Bismarck" movie is going to be epic.

Although obviously it would be "Sink the Kriegsmarine!"

Also,the battle feels like Leyte Gulf on the Atlantic.

 

[tuxer]

It seems that we're finally going to see the Axis get their just desserts.

How is the war in the Pacific going?

 

[Miss Teri]

Good update. Nice to see the Allies have a major victory.

 

[bookmark95]

There's been one issue I've been thinking about, and I think will become a major controversy of the UASR: Press censorship, especially when it comes to the actions of the USSR.

It's been established that Stalin is restraining himself because of his other socialist ally. Even then, however, I imagine the OTL atrocities of the Soviet army are still going to happen, and that the life of the average Soviet citizen is still appalling.

The UASR leadership, ideological in their outlook, are aware of the kind of man Stalin is, and what he's done, but force other newspapers to censor the dirty secrets.

One lone reporter, who tries to publish these facts, is blacklisted from journalism, and later wrongfully imprisoned for espionage, and the UASR citizens don't want to question their alliance with the Soviet Union.

It's only years later, once the USSR starts to thaw, that the scandal is exposed.

Would censorship of anti-Soviet news be common in wartime and the postwar period?

 

[Marisa Kiridifferent]

Stalin's died in the Battle of Moscow though.Molotov now runs the show although i don't know his policies will be.

Considering Eastern Front,atrocities are going to happen(and there's even hinted in the beginning American soldiers "liquidating" SS PoWs) but restrained somewhat(rape,particularly.)

 

[tuxer]

There's been one issue I've been thinking about, and I think will become a major controversy of the UASR: Press censorship, especially when it comes to the actions of the USSR.

It's been established that Stalin is restraining himself because of his other socialist ally. Even then, however, I imagine the OTL atrocities of the Soviet army are still going to happen, and that the life of the average Soviet citizen is still appalling.

The UASR leadership, ideological in their outlook, are aware of the kind of man Stalin is, and what he's done, but force other newspapers to censor the dirty secrets.

One lone reporter, who tries to publish these facts, is blacklisted from journalism, and later wrongfully imprisoned for espionage, and the UASR citizens don't want to question their alliance with the Soviet Union.

It's only years later, once the USSR starts to thaw, that the scandal is exposed.

Would censorship of anti-Soviet news be common in wartime and the postwar period?

Possibly, though I think that it would be more in line with self-censorship than direct government action. Conservative/reactionary media on the other hand...

 

[Aelita]

There's been one issue I've been thinking about, and I think will become a major controversy of the UASR: Press censorship, especially when it comes to the actions of the USSR.

It's been established that Stalin is restraining himself because of his other socialist ally. Even then, however, I imagine the OTL atrocities of the Soviet army are still going to happen, and that the life of the average Soviet citizen is still appalling.

The UASR leadership, ideological in their outlook, are aware of the kind of man Stalin is, and what he's done, but force other newspapers to censor the dirty secrets.

One lone reporter, who tries to publish these facts, is blacklisted from journalism, and later wrongfully imprisoned for espionage, and the UASR citizens don't want to question their alliance with the Soviet Union.

It's only years later, once the USSR starts to thaw, that the scandal is exposed.

Would censorship of anti-Soviet news be common in wartime and the postwar period?

While there will be some official pressure, it will mostly be self-censorship. I think the way the US has historically dealt with the news of atrocities done by its allies and vassals is instructive. For the most part, even things like dekulakization will be shrugged off as the kind of brutality one expects from primitive accumulation in an underdeveloped state. The Purges will be harder to countenance, and the Soviet government is controlling enough to keep much information from becoming public. So it will basically mean people in the American press noticing a lot of notables in the army, navy and party just suddenly vanishing. The public show trials will be the focus of public attention, and I'd expect that the Foster government would give the same kind of slap-on-the-wrist diplomatic rebuke the US does when its allies are misbehaving.

Criticism of the Soviet Union isn't going to be outright censored by the government until the war begins, but newspapers will certainly edit stories about Soviet misconduct down to the nub. After all, they won't impeach their journalistic integrity by publishing things they can't verify. Even IOTL, the full extent of Stalinist perfidy wasn't really known in the West until after Khrushchev's "Secret Speech".

In the war itself, obviously information will be tightly controlled, probably more so than IOTL. You won't have cases of newspaper owners spitefully revealing American war secrets, and those that will be getting a visit from StateSec. But a lot of it will be declassified after the war, including analogs to OTL's Order No. 227 and 270, forced labor, population transfers, the GULAG system, and of course the full weight of Stalin's repression, which due to war time cooperation the party and state archives are pretty much open to Americans with sufficient security clearance.

The major difference with regards to state secrets ITTL is that while things might be more tightly controlled, the UASR already had a robust freedom-of-information system established even before the war. Sensitive information is reviewed by national security juries, drawn by lot from the population and vetted for reliability, basically determine what can be classified. Material must be re-reviewed no less than every five years, and there's the equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act in place to speed to discharge of state secrets. So scandal over wartime secrets will end up beginning sooner rather than later.

 

[Miss Teri]

In the war itself, obviously information will be tightly controlled, probably more so than IOTL. You won't have cases of newspaper owners spitefully revealing American war secrets, and those that will be getting a visit from StateSec. But a lot of it will be declassified after the war, including analogs to OTL's Order No. 227 and 270, forced labor, population transfers, the GULAG system, and of course the full weight of Stalin's repression, which due to war time cooperation the party and state archives are pretty much open to Americans with sufficient security clearance.

Since Stalin is dead, are these atrocities continuing under Molotov?

 

[Aelita]

Since Stalin is dead, are these atrocities continuing under Molotov?

To a lesser extent. Forced labor continues as a war measure, as does the exploitation in GULAG, but the political prisoners are all quietly being rehabilitated. It's standard prison labor exploitation, and while conditions are improving from their low points in the Winter of 1941, it's not a nice place, and no one really knows if Molotov's promise of long-term prison reform is genuine or not.

Military discipline is strict, but not stupid. Orders No 227 and 270 have been rescinded, but penal battalions remain for those truly guilty of desertion and cowardice. Executions are rare.

The treatment of suspected collaborators and spies is still brutal, and "liquidations" are common. This is something that both American, Soviet and IVA troops are involved. But compared to the Commissar order and the German treatment of their prisoners, it's practically saintly. There is a General Order that authorizes reprisals against officers of the Waffen-SS in general, and selectively against Wehrmacht officers for the enforcement of the Commissar Order. It is not a war crime only in so much that reprisals are still allowed with restrictions against forces that are in breach of the laws of war.

 

[bookmark95]

While there will be some official pressure, it will mostly be self-censorship. I think the way the US has historically dealt with the news of atrocities done by its allies and vassals is instructive. For the most part, even things like dekulakization will be shrugged off as the kind of brutality one expects from primitive accumulation in an underdeveloped state. The Purges will be harder to countenance, and the Soviet government is controlling enough to keep much information from becoming public. So it will basically mean people in the American press noticing a lot of notables in the army, navy and party just suddenly vanishing. The public show trials will be the focus of public attention, and I'd expect that the Foster government would give the same kind of slap-on-the-wrist diplomatic rebuke the US does when its allies are misbehaving.

Criticism of the Soviet Union isn't going to be outright censored by the government until the war begins, but newspapers will certainly edit stories about Soviet misconduct down to the nub. After all, they won't impeach their journalistic integrity by publishing things they can't verify. Even IOTL, the full extent of Stalinist perfidy wasn't really known in the West until after Khrushchev's "Secret Speech".

In the war itself, obviously information will be tightly controlled, probably more so than IOTL. You won't have cases of newspaper owners spitefully revealing American war secrets, and those that will be getting a visit from StateSec. But a lot of it will be declassified after the war, including analogs to OTL's Order No. 227 and 270, forced labor, population transfers, the GULAG system, and of course the full weight of Stalin's repression, which due to war time cooperation the party and state archives are pretty much open to Americans with sufficient security clearance.

The major difference with regards to state secrets ITTL is that while things might be more tightly controlled, the UASR already had a robust freedom-of-information system established even before the war. Sensitive information is reviewed by national security juries, drawn by lot from the population and vetted for reliability, basically determine what can be classified. Material must be re-reviewed no less than every five years, and there's the equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act in place to speed to discharge of state secrets. So scandal over wartime secrets will end up beginning sooner rather than later.

In other words, newspaper censorship is going to be less of a scandal and more of a historical controversy.

But what would be the reaction of people like Jane Schaefer at the front lines who witness Soviet atrocities?