missouribob
Banned
Would such a Cold War have been stable or would it have collapsed into nuclear holocaust? No POD earlier than 1935.
I have a hard time agreeing with you here. Knowing the Nazi's they'd just kill everyone in every village and town within 20 miles of an insurgency. From what I've read insurgencies don't work to well when everyone in the local population is dead. I like your points about the free governments of Italy and Greece BTW. That would be interesting.The Nazis simply cannot hold all of Europe (even just western/central Europe) forever without taking serious attrition losses from guerrillas and partisans, or somehow instilling loyalty towards puppet governments in the civilian population of occupied countries. I'm not saying they can't hold Europe, just that it will be costly to do so. The US has no such problem.
missouribob said:Would such a Cold War have been stable or would it have collapsed into nuclear holocaust? No POD earlier than 1935.
I think we can also speculate that some sort of blockade will be in force around German-occupied Europe, probably around a chain of territories consisting of Svalbard-Iceland-Great Britain-Gibraltar-Sardiania/Corsica-Malta-Sicily-Crete-Rhodes. You might end up with 'Free' governments of Italy and Greece being set up on Corsia-Sardina-Sicila and Crete-Rhodes respectively.
Wouldn't a blockade be an act of war? I could certainly see the U.S. having Nazi occupied Europe ringed with bomber and missile bases, but I don't think the U.S. would actually be interdicting trade in a "Cold War" situation.
Knowing the Nazi's they'd just kill everyone in every village and town within 20 miles of an insurgency.
I like your points about the free governments of Italy and Greece BTW. That would be interesting.
could certainly see the U.S. having Nazi occupied Europe ringed with bomber and missile bases
Well we are talking about Nazis here, economic efficiency is going to take a back seat. They are probably going to enslave Russians and kill anyone who resists. The reason USSR oppression failed was because they weren't willing to continue that level of oppression in Eastern Europe. I can't see a Nazi state having such issues. Once again at worse from the Nazi point of view they will just depopulate any area with sizeable dissident.That would simply stoke even more resentment and build up the cause of resistance. Oppression frequently works in the short term (e.g. decades, like the USSR), but is rarely successful in suppressing dissent longer-term - particularly not in a developed region. And large-scale depopulation isn't really a practical policy when it comes to economic efficiency.
Armed resistance groups are notoriously ineffective without supporting boots on the ground. It's also very easy to wreck your own cause via collateral damage or from hardened killers in the groups.
Passive resistance is more effective but still a drop in the bucket.
A full out cultural co-opting and Eastern Front style atrocities would cause even the French and Norwegian resistance to collapse.
That was because the Nazis didn't fully control the East and the partisans in the East were actively supported by the Soviet state.But, Eastern Front style atrocities did not really stop resistance on the Eastern Front, insofar as I am aware.
They couldn't devote sufficient resources and manpower due to fighting the Red Army and the WAllies.But, Eastern Front style atrocities did not really stop resistance on the Eastern Front, insofar as I am aware.
Would such a Cold War have been stable or would it have collapsed into nuclear holocaust? No POD earlier than 1935.
How long would it take the Nazis to develop the atomic bomb once the U.S. or U.K. demonstrates its possible?