Cheeseburger Gothic

The Union of European Socialist Republics.

Posted January 17, 2010 by John Birmingham
Anyone remember that alterny WW2 trilogy I wrote? The one where the Sovs grabbed up a whole lot more of Western Europe at the end of the book?

Lets go back there, shall we, while I deal with some manuscript polishing issues on the latest book.

Given that both sides will develop their nuclear arsenals much more quickly, and given the Sovs have foreseen the collapse of their Empire in the original time line, how do you see the ten years after the nuking of Berlin playing out?

I'm especially interested in how the UK evolves, as it would be a frontline state in this scenario.

Assume a Kolhammer Presidency from 1952.

241 Responses to ‘The Union of European Socialist Republics.’

jennicki puts forth...

Posted January 17, 2010
I'm sorry this is wayyy over my head.

Respond to this comment

NBlob ducks in to say...

Posted January 17, 2010
Just knocked off work. Need to adjust brainspace before tackling this puppy.

1st cab off the rank, northern Italy. Last we heard it was under Red control. As the North of Italy is the manufacturing & money country & the rest is just agricultlure & ancient history I see the Communists taking the entire peninsula.

Which probably implies they are going to take everything East of there. Greece, Turkey etc.

Could Corsica or Malta be a missile farm?

France is going to cop another pounding as (from my reading) the Iron Curtain will bisect La Belle France.

The US still has a much improved capacity as it has the people to explain the development of the tech, the Soviets just have some of the tech. A little like the rosetta stone I guess.

Will think more & return.

Respond to this comment

Tarl asserts...

Posted January 17, 2010
Well, given that Stalin was in control when the revelations came to them, my assumption is that Soviet leadership clamps down *real* hard to prevent Glasnost & Perestroika from ever happening.

That suggests a jackboots and cattle-prod type occupation of Europe to prevent things like the Prague Spring from even being thought of. Off-hand, the images I'm getting are closer to Stirling's Drakaverse than anything else I can see. Not just an Iron Curtain, but a radioactive un-depleted Uranium curtain.

Once Stalin dies, butterflies become dominant in terms of who becomes his successor - all the major characters in our timeline will have already been killed off by Stalin. Whoever is left to take over is the one who gets to make choices about whether to continue the brutal occupation or trim it back - I assume the brutality is likely to win, simply from sheer inertia and terror at what would happen on letting loose.

So, what does the U.S. do with improved technology against a nightmarish Soviet? Probably cold war elevated to a higher level - satellite phones dropped by stealth aircraft to help undergrounds coordinate, followed by shoot-on-sight attitude of the Soviet defence forces keeping things lively.

By the time Kolhammer becomes president, Stalin will be approaching his due date (1953, as I recall), so negotiations probably can't take place until after Kolhammer has been president a couple of years - it will take the successor at least a year before he can deal with foreign diplomacy on a serious basis.

So, come 1954 or so, Kolhammer can try to scale back the cold war - against a decade of habit and a Soviet terror of losing control of their own people.

An interesting question is what happens in China - does the U.S. allow Russia to prop up Mao, or do the Russians allow the U.S. to prop up Chiang Kai-Shek? Has Japan been forced to burp up Manchuria, or do they still hold it? This could affect the quality of allies the Soviets have at the time.

Respond to this comment

Bondiboy66 mutters...

Posted January 17, 2010
I'd agree with NBob - the yanks and their allies are going to have a major technological advantage in the longer term as having more of the people to explain and expand the tech as well as prior experience will give them the edge over the Soviets who are basically back engineering and working it out from books.

Not sure how the maps are going to look, but I imagine Great Britain will benefit strongly from the assistance from the Americans tech-wise. So too Australia in the Asia Pacific region. Regarding that, if cards are played right we could avoid that whole communist/domino theory palaver throughout Asia and bring the Chinese, Viets, Indos et al on side. And also avoid the whole partitioning of the Sub-continent nastiness too. And maybe the Korean peninsula business could be avoided. All of that if played out, would place The West in a superior position to the Soviets. Still, any conflict would be hugely nasty merely due to the vast areas and populations involved.

Respond to this comment

Tarl would have you know...

Posted January 17, 2010
As for the UK, I assume they become somewhat of a satellite to the U.S. in this scenario - with a cold war in full gear and the curtain that much closer, they are going to have military forces coming out of their ears, probably a good chunk of them from overseas. U.S., Australian and Canadian forces predominating, I would guess. The U.K. probably recovers from rationing more quickly than in our timeline (which I recall took over a decade), due to supplies being sent to "the front" by cross-atlantic allies.

English kids would grow up with the full knowledge that the sword of armageddon hangs over their pointy little heads, which might change their attitudes somewhat. I'm envisioning a country that is used to seeing military convoys on the highways every few days, and subject to daily "duck-and-cover" messages as propaganda to keep alive the fear of the Soviet bear. Add to that a few actual news reports of the brutal occupation, the fear probably hits nerves.

Not a pretty scenario.

Respond to this comment

sibeen would have you know...

Posted January 17, 2010
Malta is an interesting one. As it was never captured by the Germans during world war 2 (the original) I suspect it would have also retained its independence in JB's universe.

With that, England would be quite loathe to give it up after the Germans were out of play as it, in conjunction with Gibralta give stategic command of the Mediterranian.

I'm not sure that Kolhammer would allow the Sovs to spread too far east, as NowhereBob proposes. Letting them get control of Turkey would let them slip down to those arab states with all that lovely oil.

Which may bring up another point, what happens with Israel? The Arabs may even join forces with the Sovs to ensure that Israel doesn't get off the ground. The Israeli State of Australia, anyone?

I'm supposed to be working, and not on this :)

Respond to this comment

Tarl is gonna tell you...

Posted January 17, 2010
Interesting point about Israel. By the end of the war, Palestine already had a huge jewish population (something like 30%, as I recall). Arab/Jewish conflict had been ongoing since 1928, so the Arabs in the neighborhood might decide a little preemptive genocide would be in order (say, tactics similar to what went on in Rwanda).

The rest of European Jews end up mostly under Soviet occupation. They weren't known for making it easy for them to emigrate, so the issue of a Jewish nation in the middle east may never even crop up.

Respond to this comment

Sweet_Jane_Says puts forth...

Posted January 17, 2010
Stalin would become more paranoid and increase the purges. This may trigger a "humanitarian" reaction by the UK and American powers to initiate more hot spots in the Cold War.

The Soviets would not invade Turkey or Greece. Turkey and Greece have kept each other occupied since the Trojan War. Even Stalin would see no reason to intrude in their skirmishes.

J.

Respond to this comment

Sweet_Jane_Says is gonna tell you...

Posted January 17, 2010
Depleted uranium weaponry would be fast-tracked.

J.

Respond to this comment

Abe asserts...

Posted January 17, 2010
Maybe with all the economics text books that would have travelled back in time in the residual memory of various slates, the sovs would see the error in the ways and adopt a market economy sooner than they otherwise would and maybe, maybe they's try to make the USSR the great market economy of the east.

Respond to this comment

Brunswick swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 17, 2010
Study soviet history. Richard Rhodes's Arsenals of Folly shows that a large number of the people in power in the soviet union had realized that the system didn't work and couldn't be made to work in the 1960's. If Nixon had ended up President, rather than Kennedy (who made up shit like the missile gap and was more of a warmonger than George W Bush), the Soviet Union would have broken apart in the late 60's rather than 80's. Kennedy's dick waving empowered the reactionary conservatives in the Soviet Union.

Another myth Rhodes busts is the republican fantasy that Reagan forced the Soviets to bust themselves financially. Soviet spending on weapons reached its peak in the mid-70's when Reagan was still governor of California. Reagan could also have triggered the fall apart of the Soviet Union earlier in the 80's after Iceland - but Cheney and his mates put a stop to that, convincing Reagan that the Soviets were really really strong. Smart people in the US intelligence services already knew the Soviet union was going to collapse and that defence spending in the 80's to fight a soviet threat was a complete money grab because the Soviets in the 80's would have had trouble defending themselves, let alone fighting an aggressive war.

If the Russians are going to do anything, it is to look at the Chinese model and transition towards that sort of authoritarian capitalism.

Russia as a real two dimensional villain died with Stalin.

Respond to this comment

NBlob puts forth...

Posted January 17, 2010
Are state of the Art insurrection skills > or < Soviet repression.

In our timeline the Poles, Czecks, Slavs, Turkics et al didn't take it lying down & got shipped off to labour/renedification camps. + revolutionary tips, cheats & hints from Ghandi to Shining Path, can Moscow maintain any kind of effective controll across the majority of 2 continents?

A: Could the / would the allies forment such excellent insuurections as to make the Soviet Bloc ungovernable.

B: Imagine the civil works the USSR would achieve with 10 ? fold population to draw on.

A 2015 sniper team would make Uncle Jo's First "peace time" May Day Parade his last.

Respond to this comment

Bangar would have you know...

Posted January 17, 2010
I'm thinking that Stalin would clamp down hard, and after that anyone in power would be to afraid to lift their foot from the peoples neck because they'd be held to account for everything that had been done. Don't know if this would be enough to make the Allies attack.

The Allies would definitely work very closely together esp with the Uptimers experience with multi national task forces.

Respond to this comment

mrblenny asserts...

Posted January 17, 2010
If anything the Soviets are in a worse position then the Allies post WWII in the alternate universe and they still have the same shortcomings they had (have) in our universe. Namely the sheer size of the US economy compared to Russia's*. Stalin may have been a crazy, murderous despot but he did stay in control of the Soviet empire until his death (perhaps murder). This suggests he is not stupid and his reading of the future might lend itself to an alliance with the Allies to prevent the inevitable Soviet collapse, perhaps citing the threat of eventual Chinese rise to help? If he did decide to try and go toe to toe with the Allies then a Chinese style reformed economy would no doubt be appealing, perhaps even in combination with a Chinese alliance?

*The US military with a paltry ~5% of GDP budget could field a carrier force in excess of 12 not including the smaller marine carriers whereas the Soviets only ever really got one in the water with what 30-40% (?) of their economy devoted to the military.

Respond to this comment

DrYobbo asserts...

Posted January 17, 2010
"Anyone remember that alterny WW2 trilogy I wrote?"

Yeah that one I keep meaning to read?

Erm, never mind

Respond to this comment

Abigail mumbles...

Posted January 17, 2010
Britain and the US would be at loggerheads as they both brawl for Israeli allegiances (Israel having found power in Stalin's Russia by promising him a safe base in the unfamiliar desert territory) to shore them up; Arabia having gone to the side of France and the Mediterranean.

Make use of London's underground sewer system as site of new parliament after Westminster bombed by the Americans

Respond to this comment

savo ducks in to say...

Posted January 17, 2010
We’ll either have a nuclear stalemate or one side or the other will actually push the button. Let’s go for the stalemate.

I’d image a much more active series of surrogate wars popping up around the globe as evangelical communism props up tribalism and some dictatorial regimes and butts heads with colonialism and the hardened of crust of post war capitalism. Chechnya , North West India, the Italian Riviera and Amur River blow up into bloody conflicts that distract Stalin from his deliverance of the rest of Europe from the yolk of Imperial [insert favourite Anti Capitalistic slogan here]. This will happen before Kolhammer becomes President and is likely to be one of the major reasons why he does become President.

Britain will keep its colonies even expanding them by grabbing some of Germany’s. She does not allowing self government for fear of the communist scourge, resulting in a whole host of ‘Liberation Army’ attacks on British home soil, led generally by disaffected politicians who had read about their future in FleetNet. Strangely, India does become self governing in that British bureaucrats leave and locals begin make decisions. But India’s relationship with Britain develops into one as close as Scotland or Wales. These ‘Liberationist’ attacks, along with the reduced but ever present threats from Communist Europe and plenty of internal destabilisation by Communist backed Unionists, forces the British Government into a state of Martial Law run by a Benign Dictatorship endorsed by the Royal family and both major parties. Peace settles over the green hills of Britain like ashes from a furnace.

The US is the biggest winner in the post-conflict land grab, directed through Kolhammer’s office and supported by the Quiet Room. It brought all of France’s external territories into the US Commonwealth as self-governing unincorporated territories of the United States (this included Vietnam - a fact that always brought a smile to the corner of Phil’s mouth) along with large parts of the Dutch East Indies. The Soviet Union missed its chance to join in the land grab by not being able project it’s influence as quickly as Britain and the US, but did manage to hold the northern part of main land Japan and its juggernaut simply rolled over a goodly portion of the oil rich Arab states and kept them. Kolhammer, fearing a backlash from Uptimers, negotiates a Jewish State in Porto Rico. Jerusalem is firmly locked behind the Iron Curtain and will remain so, according to the best minds available, until the Second Coming.

I'll talk more of Britain later.

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK has opinions thus...

Posted January 17, 2010
MR Blemy. whilst I like some of trhe thought process and have not yet put mine up on this one. I will just comment on a couple of related things.

I think OLD joes first play would be European and that in itself, assuming NO nuclear exchange on the battle field negates under most circumstances the US Naval combat power advantage. Whilst carriers are great striking and sea control pieces of gear , for a European land war of sorts, they are not key.

UNLESS you figure in a battle the US decides to go after the Kamchatka or the likes, and even invade, ALA..ARC LIGHT STYLE as Eric L Harry wrote, all be it at a much later historical time line and not an Alt one at that.

Brunswick

WHAT you need to bear in mind is that this is an ALT history time line and the players are well aware of HISTORY, or that which had happened but not yet.

so the debate as to who triggered the Soviet bloc collapse really does not come into play.

WHATS being asked is that GIVEN THE Final wash up, post that in 10 years..where are they at.

I can debate all fucking day the whys and what fucking nots of historical machinations in the political realm and their subsequent impact upon players and historical values..BUT THAT not whats been fucking well asked. and to be HONEST, it kinda fucking shits me, that people go so god dam off track and whats essentially a question about..WHAT YOU THINK MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED FFS in the ALT time line.

Respond to this comment

Brian would have you know...

Posted January 17, 2010
Economic warfare - wonderful stuff.

Command economy versus Market economy.

The Sovs were great at spying and getting key technologies. They did very poorly at industrial espionage where the sheer mass of tech overwhelmed them. There were a few classic boo-boos - one involving a computer chip, where if you read the circuitry you could see it was a direct copy of a US make. In a lot of stuff it was imitated but not terribly well implemented.

You could make case that the Sovs would move to a Chinese market driven model but the time frame is far too short. Most of the Sov budget would be involved in trying to tie down their empire. They'd be faced with a similar dilemna as the Brits after WW2 - keep the Empire or move to a welfare state. You have enough money to do only one - not both.

So .o.o.o. what are you going to do? Run a space program, churn your entire weapens arsenal, build the equivalent of a few Intel chips factories, kickstart your bio weapons program etc etc etc . . . .hmm . . .try and trade with the rest of the world . . . .export class warfare . . . .

To my mind . . .if the Politbureau read glasnotz pretty closely and figured out what Starwars was really about . . .they'd be looking towards a quick kill strategy 'cause time ain't on their side.

The States will get space supremacy first. The Sovs may start doing shell games involving nukes and cargo ships . . . .

England . . .the floating aircraft carrier will be the most likely first strike point. Until ICBM's, cruise missiles and MIRV's make the point moot.

Hmm . . ..don't discount what a Battle Wagon equipped with cruise missils or drones can do either.

For fun . . . I'd release the Little Red Book into China, just so Mao can collect royalty rights. Gotta look after authors, I say.

Respond to this comment

Scott mutters...

Posted January 17, 2010
Russian nuclear weapons would be less of a threat in this timeline, remember the lasers.

I could see America fasttracking satalite mounted laser systems. We are also assuming Stalin's death in 53 as per otl. Maybe with modern medical equipment his death was delayed?

The soviets got the Vanguard in 42, that leaves 9 years for Soviet doctors to use any information from it's medical database, think also of the um shal we say insentives Stalin would use to encourage results. Don't forget that Russian uptimer, forgot his name, who was arranging a resistance.

Kolhammer takes over in 52 he would help this out assuming it hasn't been wiped out.

10 years after Berlin would put the next book about 54, time for both sides to build up enough for a massive conventional war. Think ww III with limited use of tactical nukes. Bigger ones would not be able to be deployed due to lasers.

Stalin and his successor will not let go.

Sorry about the length.

Respond to this comment

Bangar mumbles...

Posted January 17, 2010
Brian, I'll have to check but memory says the Allies ended up the Nazi bio weapons. That brings the next question, the uptimers being less squemish and result driven would they use them?

Respond to this comment

damian reckons...

Posted January 17, 2010
Hopefully someone, referring to the uptime records, has quietly shot Ronald Reagan before '52, yeah?

Respond to this comment

Bangar swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 17, 2010
I wonder if pre-emptive is a legal defence. "you saw the records he was going to ..."

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK is gonna tell you...

Posted January 17, 2010
Damian,

that actually raises an interesting question. Would the Allies seek out individuals who were key players in History, or in this case..yet to emerge and take them out as a precautionary measure?.

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK mutters...

Posted January 17, 2010
BANGAR..you are thinking like I am on this particular one

Respond to this comment

Scott has opinions thus...

Posted January 17, 2010
Remember what Kolhammer said, this will end with a t34 on the streets of Washington or a American tank in Red Square. Not the exact words but you get his meaning.

Do you think he will let communism stew for the next 70 years or atempt to crush it. Porn I know but a captured Stalin on trial for his abuses.

One thing that never happened after the collapse of communism is it was never put on trial. National socialism was completely discredited in the Nuremberg trials. People stil claim that international socialism would work if it was implemented correctly. Lost count of the number of lefty fuckwitts who argued this at uni. Kolhammer would not let this opertunity slip through his fingers.

Respond to this comment

damian is gonna tell you...

Posted January 17, 2010
Speaking of Glasnost, Gorbie was 21 in 1952 and either driving harverters on collective farms or already a student at Moscow Uni.

Brian - the relationship between technology and espionage that you outline is a bit overblown. Harks back the the Rosenberg trial, where some folks were executed for passing "secrets" that had been public domain for over a decade.

Havock and Baganr - isn't that Minority Report?

Respond to this comment

damian asserts...

Posted January 17, 2010
Scott - what you're saying should have happened didn't happen because it couldn't, you can't prove something that isn't true. Also, your attempt to make a connection between "national socialism" and "international socialism" is a word game that has no referent in the world of facts and history.

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK mutters...

Posted January 17, 2010
Damian VERY MUCH..But I suspect some would say..well we know he has the capability..eg POL POT, ...would be interesting. I think some would not be able to stiffel the urg, to strike first.

SO..

I’m trying to establish just how far they will have come Tech wise in 10 years. I keep coming back to a thought, that whilst the initial leaps were reasonably easy, the next 2 or three generational jumps will require a vastly superior industrial base, eg…Satellites and Mirvs and ICBM’s etc. And I mean accurate one. The Germans were already well down the path, the US now has the knowledge base as well.

Whats Kolhammer been up to in the 10 years, I’m, guessing this has an impact on him running for the top job. Has there been scraps between the USSR and the Allies.

What about NATO?

The UK will be one big landing strip and jump off point. I would expect massive missile defensive systems as well for SAMS..

Could the US field the Likes of an F111 by 54..I would almost think so, that means SAC would be created. We also need to remember they went for the easily done tech upgrades and manufacturing, post the war, they will be looking to jump two more generations as well.

Would you build a F4 or would they look at the 15, or is that too ambitious for the time. I’m inclined to think so.

If we look at Europe, what weapons systems are they going to field, because this will also have an impact on the numbers available.

Super Sherman’s were good, but I would gather they would want an upgunned version of say an M60, upgunned centurion for the Brits.

Russia will be cranking out mil hardware flat out and following the time honoured, Numbers game, but they will up grade as well. HOW far…T62 by 54, how many will be available.

Wire guided rockets..Milan style…TOW?.

Respond to this comment

Scott is gonna tell you...

Posted January 17, 2010
Yeh Havock, Gaddafi and what's his name crackafat, both examples of people in need of cranial aeration.

I can also see people in India brawling because it isn't divided, lots of religious nutters wanting there own little failed state. The allies won't make the mistake of creating Islamic states of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Speaking of countries like Australia and Brazil are going to make a killing on oil and gas. The president of Indonesia is a uptimer isn't he? He may use Indonesia's resource revenue to undermine Islam and go back to it's Hindu

roots. Islamic feelings may be weaker in the 1950s.

Respond to this comment

damian would have you know...

Posted January 17, 2010
Havock - I think definitely something like an F111 by '54. And the same with the other side.

The basic theory for modern computers exited by 1950, and both Turing and von Neumann would be available to help accelerate things. The process for designing and manufacturing silicon chips and even transistors would take a little time, but given the timeframe from '42 to '52, something would be emerging and a lot faster than in OTL.

That means that a lot of tech requiring the IT to be present is possible, with or without the modern weapons it is used to drive. Computer controlled V1, for instance?

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK ducks in to say...

Posted January 17, 2010
To be honest, I cannot see Stalin waiting too long, I would suspect that he would issue orders to try and find out JUST what the US has. I’ll also wager he would be willing to trade a few more men and cities as well in a nuclear exchange. If he did take a pause, well I would figure it would be 12 months, maybe 2 years but that’s a stretch. He knows full well the longer the US is given the greater the issues he will have. Hes not rational by our standards and he wants ALL over Europe and more.

Question is, where does the first skirmish take place, where does he test the Allies resolve and their equipment without pissing away everything and kicking things off in Europe too early.

That really means a stoush is possible in the Mid east.

Britain, will be shitting itself, I suspect a lot of effort into Air defence, both ground based and aircraft and the US / UK will develop early the U2 or better, Intel, that’s airborne and intel from elint as well.

Anybody forsee a rapid advancement and creation of Echelon , but in a more basic form. Insurgency fomented in the USSR will be put down brutally, Stalin creates off shore issues to help draw US/ UK resources away from his area as well.

Respond to this comment

Naut puts forth...

Posted January 17, 2010
I reckon the Soviets would try and do what China is trying now. They would try to be Communist internally and Capitalist externally. Will their expanded territories give them the natural resources to pull it off?

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK has opinions thus...

Posted January 17, 2010
Naut..another question is..WILL Kohlhammer allow it..will the Allies allow Russia to consolidate gains..at lkeast gains external to the EU Mainland..eg MID EAST

Respond to this comment

Scott asserts...

Posted January 17, 2010
Damian, National socialism and international socialism are two faces of the same coin. The difference between them was how they achieved the goal. I find it quite interesting that both systems not only controled the civilian population through terror but they also both disposed of people with death camps. Now before you jump on me and say that there is a difference between gas chambers and what the Russians did examine the results. What matter if you murder people with Zyklon B or you use cold, starvation and over work. You are stil dead. From what I recall the Soviets managed to murder 50 million people! The reason we know so little about the details is the lack of scrutiny. Modern day historians examining Russia's history have been arrested and had material confiscated. The only reason socialism works for a short time is that the government uses force to obtain resources from productive citizens. Eventually productive citizens work the minimum they can, why put in the hard yards if some one is going to come along and take the lot? Just look at Venezuela, this cycle has repeated so many times that it is mindblowing that anyone falls for it. Now that the country is falling apart the president is blaming everyone else bar himself.

Ot I know and apologies.

Respond to this comment

Scott reckons...

Posted January 17, 2010
Good point Havock, the longer Stalin leaves it the stronger the US is. In fact if he doesn't kick off the ball in a big way early he is going to get hammered. America and even little Australia have not only the tech from the future but willing teachers who are familiar with the tech. Over 12 thousand of them, many of them holding verry high quals.

In contrast the Soviets have one ship and book learning, this is a race the Soviets were always going to lose badly. Add in to the mix the Western economic flexability the verry thing that broke the Soviet Union in otl.

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK is gonna tell you...

Posted January 17, 2010
SHIT!, this can trap ya easily. OK

1 They already have pretty goo overhead intel, thanks to the drones. Likewise radar coverage of the UK, I forgot about Halabi. Missile tech will come up rapidly and that then given the UK a very good defensive stance, especially when its against low tech rockets and Air delivered nukes. Even cruise missiles will have a hard time, assuming the interceptor tech outpaces the ALCM of the USSR , which i think it will.

So that puts me back to thinking, bleed the US /UK forces at another location, test and assess their capabilities and do it with a proxy..somewhere.

RAMP and i mean RAMP the hell outta production and I would launch at the US and UK etc in europe within 12 monhths..no later and do so with whatever tech i had.

Respond to this comment

D-Ron84 ducks in to say...

Posted January 17, 2010
Something that no one has mentioned is south east asia, indo is now on the us/uk/aus side, as is 2/3 of japan, and the nationalist part of china, when this all adds up it gives the allies most of asia, blocking the commie move south, preventing a few wars (sorry "conflicts") and may also help stop asian jihad issues later on due to greater allied control over the region

Respond to this comment

Scott puts forth...

Posted January 17, 2010
Havock, it's going to be a bloodbath. Perhaps that's how Kolhammer gets elected.

He warned Roosevelt about Stalin and was ignored. Lets say that the meds from the future keep the old bastard alive, after the end of the war he tries to play nice with Stalin and when Stalin is ready Roosevelt's lack of Preparedness gives America another Pearl. Kolhammer may not have been electable considering his views on everything, same sex couples, intergration, economics and his hard line in military matters. A couple of years shocasing the success of The Zone, interviews where he warns of the Soviet intentions, add in a overseas disaster and his electability becomes possible. Nay inevitable god or in this universes case Birmo has said so!

Respond to this comment

damian swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 17, 2010
Scott, you're still mixing things in a way that doesn't actually make sense. Yes, both Hitler's and Stalin's regimes were oppressive and murderous. No, it isn't this word "socialism" that connects them, not even a little bit. It doesn't make any sense at all in any possible historical context to articulate their competing ideologies in that way. The presence of the word in the Nazi's name was part of the alphabet soup of Weimar politics, and not a signifier. In fact, the Nazi economic agenda was heavily market focused and driven by corporations. The Nazi's hated the "socialist" Weimar social democrats more than anyone, and in turn conservative Junkers, landowners, shop keepers and the middle classes were definitely pro-Nazi. There has recently emerged a historically illiterate subculture that takes the presence of the S in NSDAP as an identifier, but this is an extremely misleading position to put forward. In economic and political terms, the Nazis were, and have always been understood to be, right wing and not left.

No argument that if you kept the subject of conversation away from economics, Hitler and Stalin would probably get along pretty well, agreeing on most subjects.

Respond to this comment

damian would have you know...

Posted January 17, 2010
Havock, taking sully what you say in terms of seriously ramping up production, simple air delivery of nukes from manned aircraft would put the numbers in the soviet's favour. At least, imagine another Battle of Britain, but with nukes.

Respond to this comment

Scott mumbles...

Posted January 17, 2010
Damian, I don't hold my belief soley on the s.

The Soviet Union and menny western acodemics spent a lot of time and efort trying to distence National Socialism from the International version. You are quite right however a lot of German companies were enthusiastic in supporting the party. Socialism is about central government control each brand if I could use that term goes about it in different ways.

Today we have a brand called Social Democracy.

This is because the other two brands National Socialism and International

Socialism have forever tainted themselves.

I note that in Europe Social Democracy is slowly slipping over the edge in to the time tested method of keeping people in line.

Respond to this comment

Scott mumbles...

Posted January 17, 2010
Btw Damian, my last comment we could argue all week and get nowhere. It's late and I don't have a lot of my source material with me.

Respond to this comment

damian is gonna tell you...

Posted January 17, 2010
Scott - agreed, no point in arguing. To summarise, my point is that Nazism was not a kind of socialism, as you are suggesting. Where the contrary position is a sort of article of faith, I've no business entering discussion and apologise for haveing done so (tired, not looking for a fight, honest ;).

Respond to this comment

Scott mutters...

Posted January 17, 2010
Damian, all good.

Respond to this comment

sparty is gonna tell you...

Posted January 18, 2010
1. Centre left govt again (ie Atlee creating welfare state - seen as good thing)

2. The Labour party division over CND etc happening in the late forties rather than the early eighties. UK knowing they are fu***d in any conflict (there is no "good defensive stance for UK in Sov dominated Europe with SRBMs) have debate about becoming airstrip 1.

3. Race / immigration being a real issue (Admiral Halabi maybe a poster child for either side of that debate)

4. UK maybe trying to subvert just a little US (we know we are natural allies dosnt mean we have to bend over every time)- ie decolonialise properly, becoming dominant 3rd power after US and USSR. Maybe keeping together a genuine Oz, New Zealand Canada axis.

Key 1949 election where all this comes to the boil.

No amount of starwars weaponary is going to keep UK safe.

oh and Jim Laker has nervous breakdown on eve of 1956 ashes series with teh weight of history on his shoulders.

Respond to this comment

Paul Nicholas Boylan has opinions thus...

Posted January 18, 2010
My activities here have garnered some notoriety. More and more I am asked if I am the same Paul Boylan who is included among the internet blog group known as "Burgers."

I, of course, deny that I am in any way connected to this place or with any of you people for obvious liability reasons, but the truth is that I first came here after reading the AOT series and wanting to know if there would be a fourth book. I emailed Birmingham who brushed my question aside and said, essentially “yeah, maybe, if I get around to it; I wanna try some other stuff first.”

After all this time, this is the first indication that there is going to be a fourth book. I am fucking thrilled.

The question is complex from an extremely theoretical geopolitical framework. Despite the Event, the same basic geopolitical framework that created and will destroy the Soviet Union will still operate. I have to ask myself how George Friedman over at Stratfor would answer the question.

Off the cuff, the Soviets would have utterly crushed the Poles to avoid the rise of the trade union movement that was the beginning of the end for the Soviet Empire. Although the Soviets would be enriched from an expanded empire, they would still be unable to compete on the same level as the west due to a flawed economic model. Antiballistic missiles would be developed both sides, which would counter the threat and usefulness of theater/strategic nuclear and chemical weapons. Kolhammer would know this and make it a priority before and after attaining the presidency. Biologic weapons would not be the focus of a a Cold War because, even though the Soviets demonstrated the willingness to use such weapons, both sides would learn the lessons learned in this time-line, i.e., biological agents are simply too dangerous to weaponize, posing more threat to those holding such weapons than on the enemy that they might be used upon.

Respond to this comment

Lobes asserts...

Posted January 18, 2010
Kolhammer was/is Jewish which makes him an unlikely candidate for executive office in any lifetime.

Also socialism =\= national socialsm =\= social democracy

Respond to this comment

Murphy mutters...

Posted January 18, 2010
I suspect, given some revelations about communist sympathizers, that many of those folks would be rounded up and curtailed in the United States. This could lead to an earlier, perhaps more virulent manifestation of the McCarthy Era, led by a different political figure (assuming McCarthy is discredited for his indiscriminate use of power in the original time line).

I also think we need to consider how the situation in Asia manifests itself. In the original time line you had a split between US and Soviet proxies in places such as Korea and Vietnam. Do the Soviets punch through the Japanese Forces in China and reach all of these regions before the US can occupy them?

If they do then that might actually work to the advantage of the US. We would not find ourselves entangled in the Korean or Vietnam Wars. And I suspect we'd probably put our eggs into securing and holding the line in Japan.

Another question to consider is the state of British Colonialism at the end of the war. Sure, the Empire is going to go away, but how does that happen? Which way does India go for instance? Do they swing hard over to the Communists or do they make their own way? What do they do about the Pakistanis? Will they be more proactive at dealing with those folks?

As for a Kolhammer Presidency, he has got the same problems that the original presidents had.

1. A mass influx of veterans into the workforce leading to a potential economic downturn which has to be managed.

2. A coming Civil Rights revolution with the real possibility of violent resistance in the South.

3. Fear over communism and nuclear war.

4. A counterculture push back against three and assisting two.

He'll have to deal with those four issues while trying to transition a petroleum invested economy into something based upon renewable energy sources. He'll have to try to do this while fighting a powerful lobby on that front. Then he'll have to fight for a reasonable working healthcare system.

And lastly, he'll have to watch for the military industrial complex, which will try to sell him all sorts of wonder weapons which aren't worth the money spent to develop them. Things like nuclear recoilless rifles and 280 mm atomic cannons, among other things.

All while being called not much better than a communist himself.

Frankly, I don't think he can get elected. Even though by our lights he might be a conservative, in 1952 he'll look like a Socialist at best.

Respects,

Murph

On the Outer Marches

Respond to this comment

Lobes ducks in to say...

Posted January 18, 2010
Re India and Pakistan; Partition occurred in 1948 in our timeline, I can't imagine it would occur the same way again, mostly because there would be Hindu hit squads out to get Nehru

Respond to this comment

Mark R. Whittington ducks in to say...

Posted January 18, 2010
With respect for Murph, one wonders if, in fact, the McCarthy Era witch hunts get short circuited due to foreknowledge of how they play out. Besides, we would have foreknowledge of who the real spies and subversives are...

Respond to this comment

Murphy would have you know...

Posted January 18, 2010
Mark, I think the hunt would be more selective in many respects and run by someone else. McCarthy aside, there were folks working for the Sovs during that time period.

But I think that caution about a McCarthy style witchhunt might be counterbalanced by revelations about just how bad Stalin is. The fear will still be there but rather than a vaguely articulated fear of Communism, it will be a more personalized fear of a man documented in the original timeline.

Further, foreknowledge of known spies and subversives does not preclude new spies and subversives coming on line, on both sides of the Wall.

I am not saying that things will be worse per se, just different. It could be that much of that fear which fueled Communism will instead find focus in the Civil Rights movement. I suspect the Southern States, which are deeply invested in maintaining the status quo (and not just for reasons of race but also economics) may fight a great deal harder than they did in the original timeline.

Which was pretty hard as it was.

I can easily see, and we saw it in the original trilogy, temps railing against civil liberties for minorities, women and homosexuals. I can easily see some rabble rouser pointing to African American Civil Rights at the lynchpin (my apologies for there is no pun intended) to what many might see as a cultural decline.

So I think Kolhammer would have to deal with issues of internal division while managing a shaky economy and dealing with a very real foreign security threat.

Respects,

Murph

On the Outer Marches

Respond to this comment

Madam Morgana is gonna tell you...

Posted January 18, 2010
Given that Germany is attached by land to lots of the rest of Europe (Japan, in comparison is a set of islands), the original nuking would have immediate health effects on surrounding countries - sacre bleu! - and medium to long term effects on population health, agriculture, and wild flora and faunae.

The UK would also probably be expected to deal with a lot of the medical evacuees/refugees. Which would stimulate jobs in the health sector and also accelerate their health professionals expertise in radiation sickness, cancers, birth defects and fertility/reproductive issues.

Havock would be your man to fight the giant glowing Weasels of Western Europe.

Respond to this comment

Bangar ducks in to say...

Posted January 18, 2010
With the known spies, depending on the individual and their reasons I can see a couple of things happening.

1) A knock on the door "We're watching you very carefully don't do anything stupid"

2) As above "How would you like to serve your country/ You are going to serve your country", a double agent is born.

3) As above "You're coming with us".

Of course looking at the reasons the for why they originally turned would be important to spot others but what would catch most spies out is they lack the familiarity with capabilities of the uptimers tech.

Respond to this comment

NBlob mumbles...

Posted January 18, 2010
Am intrigued by the resistance to a Kohlhammer presidency. Just how good would things have to be in the Zone for the rest of the continental US to want some of that action.

Is it feasible that the uptimers decide it's all to FKN hard fighting the cultural inertia and move to somewhere like Puerto Rico to restart the process?

I'm still thinking about what an additional 70 odd years of experience in fields as diverse as Enhanced Interrogation Techniques through the use of Antibiotics & Green Politics to Economic Theory impact how things develop.

I particularly remember the brifing given where a junior officer talked about a war with ideas not tanks, bombs & planes. This kind of thinking will in some fields accelerate development, in others (particulalry the soft social issues) will likely cause backlash.

How would I react to an NBob from 2050 in a silver jump suit telling me I was a barbarian & needed to do X. Y and Z? Not well I sugest.

Respond to this comment

gtrof swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 18, 2010
Stalin shouldn’t wait long at all. If he wants to the Soviet Union to survive long term, he needs to take Europe and knock the U.S. into economic decline. Plus even though he has eliminated his rivals revealed historically, who has now grown dissatisfied with Stalin by his new actions? So beginning Red Storm Rising across Europe should be a goal. It might also be possible that he relies less on nuclear weapons. As others have said, 21C tech might provide working ABM systems for the USA. Even if they were limited they should be able to handle any AT Missile systems (short of those from the Vanguard).

Now how does NATO cope with this threat? IIRC the USSR had overrun Poland, Eastern Europe, and airborne forces were in France. Assuming that since only light forces ended up there, the Western Allies can either force or negotiate them out, leaving France undivided. Germany was protected by Himmler’s orders for chemical assault, so we have a united Germany this time except one that will require extensive rebuilding. At the very least it leaves more ground for the Soviets to cover if they move west.

There should be major NATO deployments to Germany and France. Hopefully the Allies can convince the French to remain militarily inside the command structure. In the regular TL we had NORTHAG and CENTAG for the Central Region. For the Post-Transition Cold War we have SOUTHAG in France, made up of an American Corps, British Corps, and finally French Army forces. This counters a communist Italy if it exists. Germany would see the deployment of CENTAG and NORTHAG covering the ground they did as in OTL but now moved forward to the border with Poland.

England becomes the lynch pin to REFORCER, Return of Forces to Europe (instead of REFORGER). The RAF should invest more in air defense and conventional warfare rather then the strategic side of things. Kolhammer can issue a blanket nuclear security agreement with the NATO powers letting the US (who will probably have an edge in this already) work on ICBMs, SSBNs, and so on. Prince Harry maybe can head a joint Special Operations command. The Royal Navy should invest in ASW and Air Defense. As cool as big English Fleet carriers would be, the USA can handle this area again. They have the moded Hillary Clinton plus what other super carrier projects coming off the drawing boards. Get an even better Centurion MBT out in force to be followed by a Chieftain/Challenger hybrid.

The Soviets will continue improving their conventional forces. My question is which MBT do they pick? The T-34/85 with upgrades is good but once quality tanks like the Centurion, M-60 Patton, and Leopard Is are produced they will need something close to par. Of course they could just go for spam tactics with T-55s with improvements. The wheeled BMPs will be joined by a tracked version I’d think, maybe jumping up to the BMP-2.

My question is which way does the Soviet Fleet go? In the Cold War the weakness of the Soviet blue water fleet was a factor not to be missed by the Soviet military analysts. Khrushchev who worked to prevent a strong Soviet Navy to start with is gone, plus they’ve had experience from building up to attack Japan. However the lost of the Pacific Fleet might leave a sour taste in Stalin’s mouth for expensive surface fleets. If he chooses to focus on smaller stuff, submarines and such, it will be a major weakness compared to the NATO powers.

Okay I’m tapped out for now…

Respond to this comment

Brian mutters...

Posted January 18, 2010
As we look at the Sovs, we're forgetting the latter history with Afghanistan. Similar insurgency problems in vastly different theatres are going to be a nightmare. Existing Sov forces can't be demobilised they have to hold a third larger territory with an increased subject base 5 times larger than before. They have to rebuild shattered transport networks to simply move their tank armies around.

They also have to round up all the defeated armies in their subject territories.

Sov borders now include most of the Himalaya's, the entire Asian Pacific Coast. They can't man up a proper border defence for quite a bit. Hmm . . . .FOrmosa AKA Taiwan . . .that's a wild card.

Respond to this comment

Guru Bob has opinions thus...

Posted January 18, 2010
Stalin may also outlive his death in our time line given there is some debate as to whether he was murdered somehow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Death_and_aftermath

Israle just wouldn't happen - probably Jewish people woudl be relocated to Mauritius - which was a plan whioch had soem currency in our post-war world and would short-circuit the whole Middle Eastern conflict issue - but which may not be so popular with Jewish people a few generations down the track once they recovered from the relief of just being still alive.

I think that while the Western allies like the Nationalists may still be in control of places like China - uinless there was some means for Kolhammer to reduce the underlying social and political issues in Asia there woudl still be a string of insurgencies and conflicts in Vietnam, Korea, Indoensia etc.

However in our timeline Uncle Ho did admire the US and wanted to base Vietnamese indepence upon the USA model in post war era, unfortunately the powers that be were more concerned about pandering to France who wanted their colonies back then to supporting a political outcome based upon Vietnamese nationalism. I am sure that I read somewhere that at one stage they even enabled surrendered Japanese troops to keep their weaponry so that they could 'keep the peace' until French troops arrived to take over. Very silly decisions.

I would also suggest that it would still take a generation for anyone in the Pacific to trust the Japanese in any real way. Especially after the invasion of Australia in the AOT universe... Making the notion of Japan being a useful ally moot. What would happen with Japan being a frontline state as well may be closer to the ongoing games that are played these days between North and South Korea.

Another thing - given that the Soviets have access to exactly the same info as the West - why would they build the same weapons (tanks, aircraft etc) which they did in our timeline - after all in AOT don't the Allies start making AK47s? Why would they rebuild failures? I could see the Russians fielding their own versions of Leopard tanks and A-10s...

Respond to this comment

Tarl asserts...

Posted January 18, 2010
Does the USSR control China? I don't recall that, but it's been a while since I read the last book.

Occupying larger territory doesn't necessarily mean they need huge armies; the Soviets mostly governed through the locals anyway, depending on a potential Red Army invasion to intimidate the locals into doing the right thing. With Stalin still in power, there would be no doubt that a Prague Spring or a Solidarnosc would be a rapid path to a darwin award.

Respond to this comment

Scott has opinions thus...

Posted January 18, 2010
Before his election I could see Kolhammer using the quiet room to arrange for books such as Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar to be mass printed and smuggled in to Soviet controled countries. The Soviets spent a lot of efort and blood to cleanse the archives of the Vanguard. Information which still exists in the west.

Respond to this comment

Scott mutters...

Posted January 18, 2010
Murph, a mass influx of veterans is just the thing the US economy needs at this point. Over 80 years of tech development to be mined. We are in uncharted waters economicly instead of the tech curve we are used to in otl it has all arrived in one lump. The productivity of individual workers will explode but add to this all the new startups, construction and a large number of vets remaining in uniform I think that labour shortages are a real possibility. In the shortcome things will become cheaper but look for inflation as skill shortages start to bite.

Respond to this comment

Murphy has opinions thus...

Posted January 18, 2010
Scott, I'd have to do a bit of reading as it has been ages since my American History II lectures actually got past the end of World War II (the downside of teaching eight week classes) but if memory serves, the original timeline saw an economic downturn which was caused, in part, by demobilization.

The next question is ask is this. Yes, those vets get a G.I. Bill of some type (or do they?) but it will take a while to train them up to speed (two to four years). In the meantime, the economy is going to have a pretty rough go of it.

A film to watch might be The Best Years of Our Lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_Years_of_Our_Lives

Respects,

Murph

On the Outer Marches

Respond to this comment

Guru Bob is gonna tell you...

Posted January 18, 2010
Actually it would also be interesting to see what people like Einstein or Turing would do with 21st century tools? If they didn't have to prove their original great ideas and could accept them as already having been proven - could they then make more leaps of the imagination or intellect. Could Kolhammer bring together the greatest brains of that era and give them to tools to make further leaps ahead in human knowledge beyond what he brought with him? So while industry is struggling to catch up with the 21st century in a compressed timeframe he could be putting together the building blocks for the next great era of advancement - skipping the late 20th century altogether?

Respond to this comment

Abigail ducks in to say...

Posted January 18, 2010
Oh have I missed the boat on this one? is it *set* back in 53? (as though it is 1953, I mean). That makes a difference to one's understanding of the question

Respond to this comment

Abigail ducks in to say...

Posted January 18, 2010
...just when guru bonb said that about Einstein and Turing, made me think, ok, is it set the but as though other things happened to influence how much impact one event could have over another, or is it set now but as though those govs are in power and using 21st c technology and events? confused. (the Einstein .Turing idea is interesting, btw)

Respond to this comment

Guru Bob would have you know...

Posted January 18, 2010
Abigail - JB's question is about how the alternative history he sets up in his series of books would then progress about 10 years after the events he wrote about.

I think there were some references to Einstein etc in the books but I haven't read them for a while...

Respond to this comment

Abigail is gonna tell you...

Posted January 18, 2010
ah, sorry, got it; cheers guru b.

Respond to this comment

Chaz puts forth...

Posted January 18, 2010
Okay...

1, if europe is still pretty much on a war footing churchill will not get kicked out by Attlee but can easily see Churchill bringing in the NHS and state schooling.

2, As everyone will know about how things are in the east and what the soviets and their little helpers did uptime, this will reduce the appeal of groups like CND and of course remove the threat to Five and Six from soviet sympaphisers.

3, No state of Isreal, Palestine will stay Palestine under UK rule wth the usual suspects ending up in shallow graves. Sorry Menachim. There is no way that the UK would allow for instability in the Mid-east not with Stalin having access to Vanguard tech. Most of the ME will remain under UK rule with the adminstrators ands ecurity services winnowing and educating certain figures. Nasser would be excellent to bring 'onside' it of course goes without saying that Saddam Husseins family would have been 'dissapeered'.

4, We will see a change in the british labour party moving quickly to John Smiths ideals of 'one man, one vote' and in the face of stalins intrangigence clause 4 would go as well. The unions will take a knock and it's unlikely Scargill will ever rise up the ranks when it's clear that his actions helped destroy the Britosh Coal industry. In fact we could easily see the Labour party becoming a true social democratic party pretty quickly.

5, India will not stay as part of the empire although one would hope that partition would not occur, so reducing the chance of future sub-continent conflict. I'd assume that the poms would ensure that Gandhi did not get assassinated to avoid Nehru's disasterous rule and legacy.

6, Northern Ireland: Churchill was a pragmatist and I could easily see home rule being brought in with the removal of the B&T's and equal rights for the catholics. By doing this in the mid 40's would mean that the nationalist flame would be pretty small later on. Eire however could benefit from an influx of US knowhow with maybe a second zone being formed?

Respond to this comment

Sweet Jane Says mumbles...

Posted January 18, 2010
There's no way India could avoid partition. India was a land of divided territories under powerful men with different languages and faiths before the British. The Jewel in the Crown barely remained under British influence at the start of WWII. They will definitely take their chance to buck the British.

Without the UK, the Muslims will get their partition of Pakistan. The other religions may even get their own states. Fighting was bloody after Mountbatten's departure. It will be even bloodier without a Mountbatten. Flare-ups continue today.

J.

Respond to this comment

Sweet Jane Says has opinions thus...

Posted January 18, 2010
What about Stalingrad? There's only a few weeks separating it from Wake. There's no way Hitler would halt the attack. He had a problem of fixating on ideas and was fixated on Russia.

J.

Respond to this comment

Tarl mumbles...

Posted January 18, 2010
Uh, Jane - are you commenting again without bothering to read the source material?

Respond to this comment

Sweet Jane Says asserts...

Posted January 18, 2010
Big bloody deal. I switched Wake for MIDWAY. MIDWAY!

J.

Respond to this comment

Bangar asserts...

Posted January 18, 2010
Tarl don't bother.

Respond to this comment

NBlob ducks in to say...

Posted January 18, 2010
mnnghfh

Respond to this comment

Chaz ducks in to say...

Posted January 18, 2010
Partition of india not needed if you don't have a nutjob like Nehru in charge. The british administrators would be more than able to point out to the big men how it would be everyones interests to have a large multi-faith India compared with a relatively well off India and a poor pakistan and bangladesh

Respond to this comment

joe is gonna tell you...

Posted January 18, 2010
Lots of Vets returned + 21st century farming, mining, manufacture techniques = opposite of labour shortages! Skill shortages, sure, but not a shortage of workers (although you could train up a rather large number of engineers in a decade with enough modern textbooks).

Mass unemployment and consequent social strife, now dealing with that could be worth a Kolhammar presidency!

I would like to see the beginnings of an Internet appear - over telegraph cables, of course! London could become second only to the Zone as an Information Epicentre, frontline to Red Europe as it would be.

Im liking the idea of a Battle of Britain with hybrid tech.

Stalin's best options would seem to be:

1. maintain momentum and attempt to grab as much land as possible before being stopped. Dealing with fallout from Berlin would probably underline the fact that if the nukes start dropping like Dresden incendiaries, there isn't anything left worth owning.

2. take a leaf out of China's book and become the world's supplier of low-cost/quality knockoff products (manufactured by some of those 50 million otherwise-dead gulag residents?)

The Zone may become the new home of the UN perhaps?

I would expect the national players to do their utmost to CHANGE THINGS - so as to reduce the benefit to their opponents of OTL's historical lessons.

India's division I think would go ahead (my impression was that ghandi weighed up 1 million dying in dividing versus 100 million dying in a religious civil war, I think he would still do that) but with foresight of how nice a neighbour pakistan wouldnt be.... I doubt they would be generous about it.... heheh heres a thought: put Israel in between them! ew... that one's making my head spin a little.

Many historical figures from our timeline may be targeted by their future enemies preemptively, but that may not stop the effect they had - consider if you assassinated Mao before he had written his Red Book, the Mao in OTL did complete it, and the work itself would be able to have its effect regardless (possibly with the martyr-effect added in!).

Also, as someone mentions with Turing and Einstein, they would have the headstart of the rest of their life's work to build upon, with added advantage of knowing what didn't work out and the works of their students and their student's students to read.

Unlimited possibilities for explodey goodness here, but especially interesting to me is the social and geopolitical directions that could be taken. 10 years really isn't all that long for truly revolutionary ideas to be accepted as valid, but is easily long enough for things to diverge markedly from OTL.

Well, it's time to engage the braincells in something more work-related, but it was a buzz anyhow, cheers

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK puts forth...

Posted January 18, 2010
I can see the UK putting their hand up for help and trying to rally the colonies, only to be told to shove it up their collective arse. Well, maybe not that, but certainly I would see a pound of cash or blood being coughed up by the Poms for assistance.

As for Europe, well with Russian airborne units in France, how about a reversal of the BERLIN AIRLIFT..I foresee Allied units attempting to surround the RUSSIAN Airborne units and denying them resupply. Right here in this setting we have a high chance for a clash. Kolhammer will not brook any shit from Russia, nor will Churchill for that matter and I cannot See Josef sitting on his hands quietly. His reaction will be “ screw’em”..but he needs to cross the German barrier of bio weapons. That might be a thrust on a narrow front, massive air support as well. So we have a focused fight that takes place in Europe. The spear head will be defeated and the occupying Russian forces 9 Airborne), will surrender and be transported back to Russian Lines.

Josef sues for peace with the Allies and explains it all as a rather large misunderstanding. This need only take place over a week or two, but it will be an intense engagement.

Stalin only stops the offensive to consolidate his existing gains and re constitute his now exhausted field armies on the eastern front.

Moulded into the defence of the ( NATO) type alliance are the Germans. Immediately adopting the Bundeswher values and operational structure.

Respond to this comment

damian mutters...

Posted January 18, 2010
Von Neumann is just as important a figure, and just as much a character really, as Einstein.

Jane, the attack on Stalingrad was not so much of a problem as the failure to abandon it after the Soviet counterattack led to an encirclement and siege. A successful breakout could have lead to a regroup behind the Don and potentially the destruction of over half the Soviet forces.

Of course, we don't know what would have happened if Paulus had done as Hitler ordered, and fought to the last man. And that's ust in OTL.

Respond to this comment

Scott ducks in to say...

Posted January 18, 2010
The Soviets will not copy China's model and produce cheap stuff for export to the west.

China's transformation took time, the old guard neded to die out or retire. Add to this the tech toys western consumers will want will only be produced by companies associated with the zone. Many people describe Soviet produced goods as bulky and poorly made just look at the Lada and Travant both cars you almost needed to be a mechanic to keep going.

As a eastern european I new said under the Soviet system "we pretended to work, they pretended to pay us and we both pretended the system worked!"

Respond to this comment

Chaz ducks in to say...

Posted January 18, 2010
Life in the UK would be pretty miserable in the 50's as the country would have been on a constant war footing since 1940.

The nation would be still be semi-mobilised with a full mobilisation plan in the offing if Stalin moved forward.

And lets look at Josef Illich shall we? he's a border line pyschotic with definite signs of paranoia. He cares not a whit about the people just his powerbase.If he can't strike west (and why would he?) then he needs to go south esp towards the gulf as he would want to get at the oil that everyone knows is there.

So I'd say he'd build up forces to fully secure Iraq and Persia. Allied forces in theatre would have a hard time fighting a numerically superior enemy. I doubt Kohlhammer would nuke Russia for moving into the ME.

At least the new gulags would be nice a warm...

Respond to this comment

Bangar asserts...

Posted January 18, 2010
Chaz, so they'd offer a choice of gulag? Too hot or too cold?

Respond to this comment

Scott puts forth...

Posted January 18, 2010
When the Berlin wall came down East Germans crossed in to the west of the city. I remember a journalist commenting on the looks on peoples faces when they saw some of the shops. Soviet propaganda always claimed that the standard of living in the west was lower than in the Soviet Union. In this timeline this claim can be easily overrun. Furthermore the level of terror needed to keep subject countries in line will make for a nice underground movement.

Havock, England will be a verry dark place to live always fearing the Soviet hammer. Expect a larger number of English imigrants moving to South Africa and Australia.

Britain, the giant airbase sounds about right. Britain moved to the Social Democratic model to counter the alure of the Soviet Union. With the historical record any chance of any party running on a Social Democratic platform is slim.

Question, what happens in Germany?

Respond to this comment

damian mumbles...

Posted January 18, 2010
Scot - you're pesisting with this. The parties that come under the general heading "Social Democrat" are the labour-oriented parties that grew up in the 19th century, and are not some "new branding" of "socialism". Forget about that stuff, it's nonsense.

Respond to this comment

Sweet Jane Says ducks in to say...

Posted January 18, 2010
Einstein is not going to assist anyone in progressing his work when he sees the confusion and death it causes. In fact, he's more likely to try and undo anything his theories propagated. He's likely to be a candidate for assassination.

The Japanese were working on atomic weaponry at a site in Korea during WWII. They would feel motivated to continue the work at a quicker pace.

J.

Respond to this comment

Chaz reckons...

Posted January 18, 2010
bangar, yes as a first offence you get to woprk in a gulag near Basra helping pump oil.

get caught by the NKVD twice and you're for the saltmines in Siberia.

Scott. Labour won the '45 election because the British people believed that Labour would be better able to rebuild the country. That the war against germany has been effectively replaced by a probable war agaisnt the Soviet Union the british populations view point might well be different as Churchill was seen as a true war PM. However because of the need to keep the UK on almost a full war footing it would be in Churchills interests to adobt certain Labour policies esp as he would know why he lost the election in OTL

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK would have you know...

Posted January 18, 2010
One of the things both Britain and the US will be mindful of is density of units and equipment in the UK, given the threat of nuclear weapons. This may abate, dependant on just how the whole situation in France pans out, certainly the build up would continue.

I have a feeling, that to a certain degree elements of the population would be temporarily sent OS and that means we would take some as well. Manufacturing will still need to continue in England however.

Long range interceptors will come to the fore as with the long range bomber.

Long range Sam Units, they will strive to make missiles that can utilise the Tridents capabilities. I also wonder just how much pressure will be put on OZ by England to cut loose the HAVOCK!..jesus that name rocks. Anyways. I figure that the counter argument will be its ability to deny vast areas of ocean to bad guys..eg the INDIAN ocean and ME. That boat will tie up a disproportionate amount of resources from the opposing side. That’s the beauty of subs.

I also wonder if the OZ gummite would recognise this and start construction on perhaps the Oberon class with some mods as well.

Respond to this comment

Therbs would have you know...

Posted January 18, 2010
Hav - When those Sov airborne units first get into France its earlier on in the piece and Kolhammer isn't yet the Big Cheese in the U.S., Roosevelt is, so Kolhammer wouldn't have the say in how the Aliies would react to Sov units cutting up France. I'd assume that Stalin would have immediately gone for a temporary stalemate while he builds more nukes, knowing that at the time of Berlin getting vapourised the U.S. has a stockpile of the things. The whole premise depends on whether Roosevelt, egged on By Churchill, challenges the Sovs in France and Italy.

Then fast forward to the Hammer as Prez.

Respond to this comment

Scott mutters...

Posted January 18, 2010
Damian, politics is as much about perceptions as facts. How many times have you seen a politician argue something that is factually either wrong or dubious? A political party following the emergence will take information from fleetnet and spin it for all it’s worth.

You name the polocy it will be fair game. The labour parties and the union movement won’t be able to disassociate themselves fast enough.

Quite right about Churchill

learning from his mistakes.

Respond to this comment

Brian is gonna tell you...

Posted January 18, 2010
Hmm . . . .historically significant scientists of the '40's.

First . . . .they have to play catch up. All due respect to Albert . . . .his most significant theoretical work was done in the 1900's.

We've been doubling the amount of scientific knowledge every couple decades since WW2. Every significant mind of the '40's will have to go back to school just to learn how to access the databases, then to unlearn stuff before they can learn the new stuff.

The world will have to go on a massive reeducation program just to properly use the knowledge that's been given them. We tend to forget the massive swelling in Engineering and Science ranks after WW2. We also seem to have forgotten the massive 'brain drain' from Europe to the USA post WW2. IOW you gotta have the trained people available to use the knowledge and it will be a pyramid. IIRC engineering ranks in the US circa '60's was in the 100.000's and it took a post war boom and GI bills to do it.

Hmm . . . .speaking of people . . . .dislocations in industry as your entire industrial base is now considered rust belt country. Training . .retraining . . . .

PS. Get to all those rare earths in Africa else you don't have a mobile phone industry. . . . hmm . . . .could have impications in Wi-Fi . . .never thought about that before . . .

Respond to this comment

Sweet Jane Says has opinions thus...

Posted January 18, 2010
"Plans to create a new state called Telangana from India's southern Andhra Pradesh state have provoked sporadic violence and fuelled demands for other new states across India."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8407984.stm

Respond to this comment

Scott mumbles...

Posted January 18, 2010
Brian, that's a point much of our modern tech is reliant on rare earths. Australia has deposits but apparently Australia's deposits are found among radioactives, a reason we haven't developed them in a big way in otl. This may change, the antinuclear

movement doesn't exist back in the 40s. What will happen in Africa? After 40-50 years of self rule African countries are in a worse situation than before indipendence. Perhaps a period of transition will be used in this timeline.

Respond to this comment

Scott reckons...

Posted January 18, 2010
Btw the other main source for rare earths is China. Would the Chinese nationalists be able to translate this resource in to wealth for it's people or will China fall to Mao? Either way the growing tech industry needs this resource.

Respond to this comment

Mark R. Whittington ducks in to say...

Posted January 18, 2010
Murph, you make good points, as usual, especially about civil rights. Though a dispassionate analysis would suggest that the South is much better off economically without Jim Crow. I can also see a bigger, earlier push for civil rights as well, with those favoring it believing it to be "inevitable" anyway.

Respond to this comment

Brian has opinions thus...

Posted January 18, 2010
There's a lot of things that may not happen this time around.

Consider the American freeway system. Most of it is post WW2 construction. At the end of WW2 the worlds railway systems are coal driven. The best system is the US. TO move a lot of resources do you opt to beef up the railway system? Or . . .do you invest in national freeway system? IIRC the railways were progressively bought up after WW2 and effectively cannibalised to support interstate trucking.

The big thing is, if you want to move a lot of heavy things the existing railway infrastructure is there. Trucking requires beefing up bridges . . .almost every freakin where. One of the reasons certain bridges were prime targets . . . .only a limited number could stand Panziers trundling over them. Let alone mobile ICBM launchers.

Hmm . . . .C4 another post WW2 invention. The Czechs made a lot of it. One of the prime suppliers for 'liberation movements' of one stripe or another. IRA and Libya for certain.

Respond to this comment

Mark R. Whittington is gonna tell you...

Posted January 18, 2010
One other thing I wonder about are the number of famous politicians whose careers might be still born because of misdeeds/mistakes they made (would have made) in our time line.

Nixon (Watergate)

Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam,Great Society)

JFK (fooling around,various ailments treated with dubious methods)

These and others could protest that they won't do these things now, but how would voters react to that?

Respond to this comment

damian mumbles...

Posted January 18, 2010
Mark - JFK would mayhbe getting gong sooner, or rather perhaps his father. Johnson, since getting into Vietnam would be sort of negated and the great society thing was great policy in hindsight, that would get a bigger following and maybe even more impetus this time around (USA might get a decent healthcare system?)

Respond to this comment

mrblenny ducks in to say...

Posted January 18, 2010
+1 to the comment on George Friedman from Stratfor. Stalin's fundamental problems remain the same in OTL or alternative. Namely how do you keep effective control over such a large geographic and culturally diverse area. The standard response is a very strong internal security force coupled with a command economy but we all know how inefficient this becomes.

Hence my comment RE: the US carrier force versus the Soviet Union in OTL. I was more pointing out the sheer size of an economy that can field 12 carrier battle groups without breaking a sweat vs the Soviets who nearly killed themselves off and barely completed one. (Of course you could argue they never really tried to build a large fleet and stuck to men and tanks but that kinda proves the point).

Damo

Respond to this comment

damian asserts...

Posted January 18, 2010
Scotty, I think the <25% of the US economy that isn't directly stimulated by military spending can be said to not be a "command economy", and obviously most of ours over here. Though we have a lot of the social democrat type stuff going on, and I think it gives us an advantage over the americans. So that's all a bit vague. Ah well.

Respond to this comment

sibeen is gonna tell you...

Posted January 18, 2010
On the JFK note, I actually started to write a story about that family in JB's time line. Everyone forgets the older brother, Joseph, who was actually the heir designate of old Joe. He was killed in a bombing run into Germany in OTL.

With that knowledge, young Joe doesn't die, and goes on to run a Presidential campaign. The Presidents for the next 32 years are:

Joseph Kennedy - two terms.

JFK - two terms.

RFK - two terms.

Ted Kennedy - two terms.

OK, OK, the last one was a joke.

Respond to this comment

NBlob reckons...

Posted January 18, 2010
interestinger & interestinger said Alice.

What an fascinating collection of commentators you keep Mr. Birmingham.

And as far as I can see less than 2% faff.

Maaarevlous.

Respond to this comment

Abigail reckons...

Posted January 18, 2010
I wish the last one wasn't a joke :( But interesting if you had a Kennedy dynasty owning America for that long in this alternate universe. What are the right wingers up to while that's going on though?

Respond to this comment

Tarl has opinions thus...

Posted January 18, 2010
I think the sequence of Kennedys is unlikely. The U.S. tends to blame the sitting president (and his party members) for things that have gone wrong. Even if nothing else, simple economic swings would make a designated-successor unlikely.

When Bush Sr. won his election, he was the first sitting vice president to win the presidency in well over a century.

About the only way to arrange a designated successor is the trick the Republican governors pulled in Massachusetts in recent years. Weld resigned half-way through his second term, so by the time the election came, his successor (Celucci) ran as an incumbent. Then Celucci resigned mid-term, but even with that advantage Swift wasn't able to win her election.

Respond to this comment

Tarl swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 18, 2010
Oh, and one more post to push the comment number into three digits :-)

Respond to this comment

sibeen asserts...

Posted January 18, 2010
Bloody hell, Tarl; how is Murph's head going to explode at the thought of 32 years of Kennedy Deomocrats in the Oval office if you keep trying to shoot the idea down.

Get with the bloody program!

Respond to this comment

Bangar is gonna tell you...

Posted January 18, 2010
Sibeen, I reckon it'd take a lot more than that.

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK would have you know...

Posted January 18, 2010
Mr Blenny, if you look in the last section of Final Impact, the ruskies fielded a rather large fllet of reasonable quality. The Japs sank most of it, but it only took two years. remember, man power utilisation in the USSR is NOT an issue and would not be a second time around. Over halgf of europe is under their control, part of italy, part of Austria, China will possibly fall as well, plus a goodly portion of the middle east. They still have two bombs in the locker I think as well.

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK would have you know...

Posted January 18, 2010
I hope somebody caps that fkn muppet Macarthur or he has an ACCIDENT!...fkn tool

Respond to this comment

mrblenny would have you know...

Posted January 18, 2010
Havock, this is very true. The Russians have never had a very productive economy throughout history. They have however on several occasions fielded very large armies and even navies so they can certainly do it again. However remember we are talking about an empire that spans a large portion of the globe, yet they have no reliable internal transportation network, a poorly educated and frightened population and can only achieve the illusion of parity with the US by diverting almost the entire economy to military related projects.

In the birmoverse they may "control" large portions of territory but that does not automatically equate to additional resources for the state. How would they transport food from Italy to Moscow for example? Educate enough engineers to extract oil and gas? Perhaps a way forward for Stalin is to "concede" territory that he could never hold anyway for a sweet deal involving tech transfers or foreign investment. Not a very exciting, explodey goodness story though :-(

Respond to this comment

savo asserts...

Posted January 18, 2010
gtrof said: Now how does NATO cope with this threat

.

Why would there even be a NATO. Germany gone France cut in half Italy gone Holland gone probably Belgum gone as well. Will Andorra join the fray??

Einstein had finished all his good stuff 30 years before. Turing wasn't the only one in the field and perhaps not the most exceptional. Heim would be interesting.

Respond to this comment

Bangar mutters...

Posted January 18, 2010
Havoc, Mac was a political general ... Kolhammer eats him alive without breaking a sweat or getting indigestion.

Respond to this comment

damian mumbles...

Posted January 18, 2010
Savo - von Neumann would be most interesting, being able to work in light of his later work.

Respond to this comment

Bangar puts forth...

Posted January 18, 2010
Also Feynman would be huge, young enough (junior at Los Alamos), bright enough (Birmo put him in any sequels, you will not regret it), and just read the memoirs. The problem will be extrapolating where his thinking will go. An original mind.

Respond to this comment

damian would have you know...

Posted January 18, 2010
Oh yes, Feyman!

Intersting thought - there'd be no "Austrian" school of economics, ftw.

Respond to this comment

savo would have you know...

Posted January 18, 2010
Nice FF from MickHawkes on Paul Brasch search for Burkhard Heim

http://miniburger.wordpress.com/axis-of-time-fan-fic/going-home%e2%80%a6-mick-hawkes/

Respond to this comment

sibeen reckons...

Posted January 18, 2010
The bongo playing Feynman is a must :)

As Savo said, Einstein had shot his bolt years before and was mainly a father figure by this time. Physics is normally a young blokes game. Dirac may be still young eneough (just) and Dyson would be entering his prime.

Respond to this comment

Guy ducks in to say...

Posted January 18, 2010
The UK would be the main US ally and the main forward base for the coming conflict with the Soviet Union. Given that the true horror of communism will be common knowledge in the alternative timeline thanks to the time travelers, there would be far fewer naive lefties playing thier silly games. CND would not become a major force.

The US, especially under a Kolhamer administration, would be making huge military and eceonomic investments in Britain. The result would be that the British economy recovered from the war faster than in our timeline. US cultural influence would be rather greater as well.

UK politics would probably miss out on much of the socialism it "enjoyed" in the decades after the war. Clear evidence form teh future that socialism made Britain much poorer than it needed to be will be paraded in front of the voters at every election. The emergence of a high-tech firmly capitalist Britain would be prety much a given under the circumstances.

Apart from Britain itself, there are the colonies to consider. Malta would continue to be a vital base to control the Med, especially as the Soviets control most of the northern Med coastline. The same would be true for Cyrus. Whether or not Malta and Cyprus gained formal independence, they would happily accept a role as a major US/UK militay base (given that the alternative was to get shipped off to the gulag with the other slaves). Much the same for the other colonies to a lesser extent.

Australia and New Zealand would also get a much greater and earlier degree of US military and econmomic investment. The idea of the Anglosphere would emerge quickly, with a military/economic/cultural grouping of the US/UK/Australia/New Zealand forming the core of the free world. The tattered remnants of Western Europe still free of communist control would have less influence and would basically have to do as they were told if they wanted to gain protection from the Russians.

It was not entirely clear in the books exactly how much of Western Europe the Russians ended up controlling. Did they, for example, control the southern French Atlantic coastline? How much of northern Italy did they get? You can easily imagine the Soviets looting the art treasures of Venice and Milan. Doubtless the Anglo-Americans will dig in hard to protect the rest of the country (sadly the least industrialised part, although I imagine the tech transfers from America would quickly change that.

US and British troops would also be based in Scandinavia, including Finland. Evidence from future of the horror of the Soviet regime would make ideas of nutrality pointless.

Lots of scope for espionage between Northern France and Southern France.

Would the Soviets decide to try for an early first nuclear strike? Quite possible as they would have clear evidence from the future that socialist economics don't work and that ultimately capitalism is the only game in town. However, any war would certainly see the destruction of Moscow and it's difficult to maintain a centralised dictatorship if you've lost the centre!

Respond to this comment

Matthew K mutters...

Posted January 18, 2010
Ooooh! (Jumps up and down and claps hands). Fun thread!

Can't stay long and haven't time to read all these very good posts now.

Sparty had some points re UK.

No reforming Labour government? The working and middle class implicitly expected a substantial set of reforms to cap the reform process which had been ongoing since 1832. And they just get more war without end? I can see what Orwell called the "flabbily pacifist" "left wing intelligentsia" getting a big boost.

Empire? In our time line a large strand of US public opinion was hostile to the British Empire and UK was flat broke by the end of the war, a deliberate tactic by the US. UK would be hard put just to hang on to Gibraltar and Malta, (Spain is still under Franco innit?), maybe they could be tripwires like West Berlin?

Stalin was never in favour of large scale exporting of communism, he preferred to consolidate it in Russia (and his personal hold on power was all important to him). Trotsky was the more evangelical about spreading the word, hence the rivalry. So has the arrival of the fleet from the future so changed Stalin's mind? I could see the Sovs withdrawing to a more defensible position, leaving themselves some satellite states as a buffer zone.

SJ's point about India (The Raj rather), is good. Jinnah, and to a lesser extent Ghandi, were both guilty of playing up divisions for their own political ends - Jinnah was actually a whisky drinking lawyer with a wah wah accent and a fondness for Saville row suits. However they had been shit stirring for a while pre war and I suspect the process was too far gone to avoid partition. But did it inevitably have to be as horrible?

To my mind, it was the abrupt withdrawal of control that triggered it.

Respond to this comment

Matthew K would have you know...

Posted January 18, 2010
Oh and JB? You ought to have Ernie Bevin survive longer in your world, he was kind of a Labour working class Churchill. Big fat man, started life as an illiterate carter and ended up founding Britain's biggest union, British foreign secretary and founder member of NATO.

Left wing and steadfast on opposing communism.

Respond to this comment

sparty swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 18, 2010
"there would be far fewer naive lefties playing thier silly games. CND would not become a major force" For many CND wasn't about appeasing or liking communism but about just not wanting to get nuked. in an even more hostile world than the original timelinee it could be very appealing group. Not saying i agree just that it could almost become the "offcial" protest group agaisnt all the changes to the world brought about by teh fleet.

I think "resentment" about teh changed timeline would becoem a politcal force in itself. (Just ask Trekkies!)

Respond to this comment

Guy swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 18, 2010
When he was general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Yuri Andropov publicly encouraged so-called 'peace' groups like CND to fight against American and British 'warmongers and imperialists'. He praised CND for its work. When he was asked if Russia would engage in unilateral nuclear disarmament he said 'Of course we will not give up our weapons. We are not a naive country'.

CND and the other groups that tried to persuade western countries to disarm without any comparable disarmament from the Soviet Union were just the latest version of the kind of people Lenin referred to as 'useful idiots'.

Respond to this comment

sparty is gonna tell you...

Posted January 19, 2010
By the end of the third book, there had been alot of nuclear weapon use- regardless of the politics a "please dont nuke us" movement might be very appealing.Particulary given the "improved Soviet Union".

Respond to this comment

Harry the Dog mumbles...

Posted January 19, 2010
Hi Jonno

A further book in the AoT series, sounds excellent!!!

As a Brit I'll chip in my twopence worth.

With a detailed picture of what the future holds, I would imagine the UK would be keen to protect the Empire, and as a consequence turn inwards whilst applying the future technology they have in support of this end.

Could there be some hostility towards the US given their stance over the Suez Crisis? As I think on this point, would the UK also need to develop their naval power to protect future North Sea oil reserves and possibly those of the Falkland Islands?

Also would they not want to clamp-down on the Republican movements in Ireland, again given what the future holds.

Given Harry's obvious influence, could their not be a rift in the elite classes of UK society. He would obviously have a more progressive outlook on the future of things, which may not sit well with a Country keen to protect its interests both present and future, at all costs!!!

The UK could become quite a sinister state, hell-bent on self-interest (just like today really!!!)

If I can think of anything more, I'll get back

Cheers

Harry

Respond to this comment

Matthew K swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 19, 2010
Harry the Dog: "...a rift in the elite classes of UK society."

It's true that GB did have a lot more of the bull necked, tweedy, old school tie chappies who took pride in their anti intellectualism and would literally bellow over any opinion they disapproved of. There could well be a reactionary movement from them opposing what they've heard of the future.

Equally as dangerous are what Orwell calls the "squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti British" left-wingers who did as much to embolden Hitler as the did his supporters.

Much food for thought here:

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/lion/english/

Respond to this comment

Vallon Davis puts forth...

Posted January 19, 2010
1. A series of proxy wars or insurgencies within the colonies of England, France, Belgium etc, with support and advisement from the Soviets. An increase in resistance movements in many parts of Soviet occupied Europe. The U.K. would be the staging area for the various resistance groups against the Soviets.

2. The Soviets encounter some snags in their march into Asia, as the Viet Minh under Ho Chi-Minh receive a lot of support from the new and improved C.I.A. and the Quiet Room in the Zone.

3. Growing Anti-Stalin movement branches out from Siberia, as Ivanov and his forces of Anti-Communist Russians increase in numbers leading to another Russian Civil War.

4. Western Allied Forces in Japan keep a close eye on the Russian occupied portion in the North, which they are having difficulty supplying and supporting as they are tied down in so many other areas, and Anti-Communist forces are on the verge on taking Vladivostok.

Respond to this comment

Matthew K puts forth...

Posted January 19, 2010
Harry the Dog: "...a detailed picture of what the future holds..."

It doesn't. That is/was/will be an alternative future where WW2 was not interrupted by a 21st century fleet dropping into the middle of it. That future never will come to pass.

Respond to this comment

mckinneytexas ducks in to say...

Posted January 19, 2010
Coming in late, dammit.

First of all, if Kolhammer is President in 1952, SOMETHING already has happened. Something big and nasty almost certainly.

AoT ended with the Sovs in southern France, moving at a speed over the Alps which still defies reason. Nonetheless, that was the playing field Birmo left us with. My guess is that there was an immediate post-war falling out with the Uptimers resulting in a significant down-sizing of US force levels and defense investment, i.e. pretty much what actually happened in our timeline. The Sovs did pretty much what they did in our timeline, although much more of it and much better--they built the hell out of more and better weapons, and eventually got crude nukes. The point of departure is that, unlike the Cold War, the Sovs invaded Europe and the UK is now the last man standing. Don't know about the Chinese role in all of this, but when the Sovs moved west, it scared the crap out of the US and all of the douche bags who wouldn't listen to 'Cassandra' Kolhammer were swept out of office and Kolhammer, with solid majorities in both houses, was swept in. Now, it is WWII all over again, except this time the Sovs have all of continental Europe (except Spain and Switzerland?). The UK is replaying its original role, Labor is dead meat and Winnie is back in the driver's seat.

How Kolhammer fights this war remains to be seen. Like PNB, I am hoping JB eventually tells us.

Respond to this comment

mckinneytexas is gonna tell you...

Posted January 19, 2010
Sentence should read, "My guess is that, IN THE U.S., there was an immediate post-war falling out with the Uptimers . . . "

Respond to this comment

Sweet Jane Says has opinions thus...

Posted January 19, 2010
Feynman, Oppenheimer, and Von Braun... Someone from the future would need to look into Las Alamos, Sandia, the US space program, and the facility in Tennessee to make sure those people don't fall into Russian, German, or Chinese hands.

J.

Respond to this comment

Sweet Jane Says would have you know...

Posted January 19, 2010
Brazil... The Germans had contacts in South America. At one point they tried to persuade Mexico to join the Axis in order to make a three front war for the US. German interest in Brazil would continue, especially if they know that Brazil acted as a haven in their future.

J.

Respond to this comment

Matthew K asserts...

Posted January 19, 2010
McK, in OTL Churchill was past his best and a bit senile by the '50s. Of course medical intervention from the future might change this. If you could stop Winnie drinking and smoking his breakfast.

It's spelled Labour btw, and if Winnie's wits could survive why not Ernest Bevin? He deserves a part, a great character and downright right.

Respond to this comment

Building the Birmoverse « The World According to Me… has opinions thus...

Posted January 19, 2010
[...] thread over on Cheeseburger Gothic soliciting thoughts on what the world will look like after the war in the Axis of Time [...]

Respond to this comment

SJPONeill would have you know...

Posted January 19, 2010
This is a great thread with a ton of awesome comemnts and ideas but I guess you all knew that...I had a lot to say so tossed it in here: http://sjponeill.wordpress.com/ I'm a bit technically-disadvantaged so it is easier for me to do stuff with links this way that clutter up comment here with them...hope that's OK?

Respond to this comment

mckinneytexas swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 19, 2010
Matt, believe it or not, here in the US we spell the UK's Labour Party as Labor. Meant no offense.

Respond to this comment

Matthew K has opinions thus...

Posted January 19, 2010
I know McK, I was just taking a swipe in passing! ;) Believe it or not "The Red Flag", Labour's "theme song" as it were, is sung to the tune of "Oh Christmas Tree"! Every party conference they all get up and sing it in rousing chorus, which must be a real headfuck to any Americans and Germans watching.

http://www.marxists.org/subject/art/music/lyrics/en/red-flag.htm

Respond to this comment

El Coqui reckons...

Posted January 19, 2010
Sweet Jane:

It was Argentina who was friendly to the Germans, no Brazil who not only declared war on Germany but have troops and aircraft deployed on the Italian peninsula. American Naval Patrol aircraft flew from their bases to watch over the South Atlantic.

The problem that I see with John scenario is that presumes that the USSR have a better logistics train that historically they ever possessed. Comparing it to the US would be akin to compare a horse drawn cart and a eighteen wheeler.

We do power projection in a world scale as a matter of course, they no so much.

Respond to this comment

Matthew K is gonna tell you...

Posted January 19, 2010
SJP, I was going to suggest cut and paste but that is quite a chunk.

I like the idea of the Vulcan, because it looks cool dammit.

Respond to this comment

Sweet Jane Says ducks in to say...

Posted January 19, 2010
ODESSA - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/odessa.html

J.

Respond to this comment

Sweet Jane Says ducks in to say...

Posted January 19, 2010
Don't forget "The Boys from Brazil."

J.

Respond to this comment

Sweet Jane Says mumbles...

Posted January 19, 2010
BBC News | World | Nazi gold vault opened in Brazil

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/34761.stm - 19k - similar pagesA bank vault containing more than $4 million worth of what is allegedly property stolen from victims of the holocaust has...

J.

Respond to this comment

Matthew K has opinions thus...

Posted January 19, 2010
Yeah, thinking about while reading Orwell I'd say that come 1949 or so, the peace at any price sentiment would have swelled amongst the British public. They would be so pissed off after a decade of war, tensions and general sword of Damocles hanging over their heads that they'd jump at any offer from Stalin, no matter how transparently insincere.

Remember, appeasement was popular before the war, (and there were some who wanted to make peace with Hitler during the war).

Respond to this comment

SJPONeill swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 19, 2010
Sorry, MAtt, But I think the Brits would return to that Finest Hour Blitz mentality and just stick it out - the post-Transition information Age would make it pretty clear what life in Sov-occupied Europe was like and so I think they would tell Uncle Joe to stick it. A large part of appeasement, rightly or wrongly, deliberately or otherwise, was that it gave the UK a bit more time to get its act together for the war that everybody knew was coming - with the benefit of hindsight they probably should not have made a stand over Poland and used the extra time to get ready, build more Spitfires and aircraft carriers, train up a standing Army and encourage the Dominions to do the same...

Respond to this comment

Paul Nicholas Boylan would have you know...

Posted January 19, 2010
All I keep thinking about is the size of the resulting Soviet Empire and how difficult it will be to hold it together - nukes or no nukes, scattered high tech or no scattered high tech the Germans could barely hold their pre WWII empire together and were severely stressed by French and Greek partisans.

Respond to this comment

Tarl asserts...

Posted January 19, 2010
Reading back through posts, Scott has a point about Kohlhammer getting elected to the presidency. Things have to have *seriously* gone wrong for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, he'd be "one of them", and not electable. The only way he gets elected is if he appears to have the answer to bail the country out of a mess.

Just being a nice guy, effective in the Zone, and representing future hope isn't sufficient. To win a primary, he has to buck all the existing power structures (a decade isn't nearly enough to unseat those), and then his other-party opponent has to be seriously handicapped in some way - like being saddled with the blame for something horrible.

So what could go awfully wrong? Presumably it would be Roosevelt's successor - with all the diseases Roosevelt had, even uptime medicine won't be able to extend his life much. Said successor would have to have something on the size of unexpectedly losing a major nation to the Red Menace or a catastrophic economic depression (possibly triggered by uptime tech) - something that for some reason the voters would think an uptimer could help out with.

One possibility that occurs to me is race riots; with black america fully aware of how the future had gone, they might demand greater rights at the same time as the Ku Klux Klan and others try to implement even greater repression to avoid civil rights. That could easily escalate to full-blown race warfare across the south, possibly across the nation. Add in the possibility of the Soviets (chuckling in their fur hats) adding fuel to the fire through KGB undercover agents, and perhaps african-americans managing to formally seize control of a state or two.

In that kind of environment, a white leader from the blacks-are-equal future might be seen as having the ability to get the country calmed down again.

Respond to this comment

SJPONeill would have you know...

Posted January 19, 2010
An uptimer like Kohlhammer getting elected is probably no less likely than California or Montana electing actors and body-builders as governor. the '52 election is well after the end of WW2 and if (perhaps a big IF) Kohlhammer pulls off some sort of resolution in international or domestic politics (I like the domestic race scenario too) then he may well show-in; or maybe the previous guy is just so bad that anyone appears betters; or maybe the uptimers cheat in order to secure the DC power base...?

Respond to this comment

Scott mutters...

Posted January 19, 2010
The uptimers cheat to get Kolhammer elected! Love it, lets see the successor to Roosevelt isn't Trumann, his intergration of black people in to the military otl makes him unelectable. So his replacement comes along and Kolhammer discovers that he is a supporter of the Soviets maybe a long term sleeper. Now faced with this what does he do? Sit back and let a traitor take over or use the quiet room to undermine and take over. This is not so far feched, we know that the quiet room is already engaged in political activities.

Respond to this comment

gtrof swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 19, 2010
Birmo I think you need to clear something up here. I've read several posts that suggest the Soviet Union controls everything in Europe at the end of Final Impact. As I understand it the Soviets got, Poland, Eastern Europe and maybe Greece, Italy, and dropped airborne units into southern France.

As it sounds to me, the Russians control Italy, Poland, EE, and Greece. Germany was protected by the no mans zone created by anthrax attacks. As a result Germany as a whole is still around and at least half of France.

Some further info would be helpful.

Respond to this comment

Sweet Jane Says mumbles...

Posted January 19, 2010
African-Americans would not abandon the WWII war effort unless there was a greater threat. African-Americans had units in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, "Indian Wars," WWI, and WWII. Do you think black Americans would show loyalty to invaders? The future people might preach the right words, but they're still invaders.

J.

Respond to this comment

Tarl reckons...

Posted January 19, 2010
SJPONeill - to become president he has a two-step process; first, he has to persuade the partisans in a primary. The people who vote in primaries are tilted more towards the extremes. The candidate has to both persuade these partisans that he represents their interests and that he's electable in the main election.

The only way Eisenhower got in was because the republicans were desperate for a win after twenty years in the wilderness, so they drafted an outsider they felt some democrats would vote for. Even that wouldn't have been enough without the democrats picking Stevenson, far enough left that even centrists democrats were uncomfortable.

Possibly a similar dynamic works to get Kolhammer in - if Roosevelt's successor is a democrat, and Republicans can be persuaded that Kohlhammer will support their causes, they might be persuaded to nominate him instead of drafting Eisenhower.

Respond to this comment

Scott would have you know...

Posted January 19, 2010
At the end of bk3 Himmler's firebrake of chemical weapons had stopped the Soviet advance. How bad was the bombing campaign Berlin is gone but what shape is the German industrial cities in?

Who takes over? One of the uptime Germans would be a good idea. Is Germany the reicipiant of a Marshall style plan?

Any one know anything about how long chemical weapons persist in the environment?

Picture this,

within 2/3 years the chemical barrier is diluted enough to allow a Soviet advance. Kolhammer warns of this but is ignored as a warmonger. The Soviets advance and Germany falls to the reds!

Come election day Kolhammer can say "told you so. We're next!"

Respond to this comment

Scott mutters...

Posted January 19, 2010
Part of Eisenhower's apeal was he was the man who beat the Nazis, an over symplafication of the dynamics i know but bare with me.

Kolhammer and uptime tech, the stratagies taught by his people saved a shit load of lives.

You're a man who history showed dyed in the battle of the bulge, this time you and a lot of your buddies are alive, you're a wife daughter sister of said man. Maybe, you're a Japanese pow who was liberated. Favourably disposed to the people who made it possible you think? So they have some funny ideas but they gave me back my life, someone I love, I know this would influence my thinking.

Respond to this comment

SJPONeill reckons...

Posted January 19, 2010
Perhaps Kohlhammer is the wrong uptimer? looking at the Ike/JFK dynamic, maybe the uptimer nomination has to be for someone who was actually in or certainly perceived as being in the fight? I need to go back and reread because the only uptimers I can remember being prominently engaged in combat are Halabi and Prince Harry, both of whom fail the first hurdle for POTUS.

Respond to this comment

Abe mumbles...

Posted January 19, 2010
Wasn't "Boys from Brazil" a Simple Minds track, Jane? I think it was on either Sister Feelings Call or Sons and Fascination, wasn't it?

Respond to this comment

Chaz would have you know...

Posted January 19, 2010
Brazil has a fairly significant german expat population down in the south. It's fairly modern if you know what I mean.

Peron was pretty pro-Nazi as in a nutshell peronsim is pretty much national socialism. Argentine volunteers who fought in the battle of britain (had their own squadron) have not been offically acknowledged by the pollies until fairly recently.

Two main phases of german immigration to Argy land, one after WW1 and they went to mendoza and then another lot after ww2 and they went to cordoba or is it the other way around? Anyway lots of german fmailies running vinyards in the wine regions. You tend not to ask when they settled.....

Respond to this comment

Bangar swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 19, 2010
Just a thought, I'm not overly familiar with electing American Presidents, but could he be appointed Vice or run as Vice and then become President?

Respond to this comment

Tarl is gonna tell you...

Posted January 19, 2010
Vice Presidents couldn't be appointed until 1967; the XXVth ammendment.

Kohlhammer could have run as Vice President, but can you see him being willing to play 2nd fiddle? The job of Vice President in the U.S. is, to quote "worth a bucket of warm spit". Because a President can't get rid of a VP, they are usually tremendously reluctant to give a VP any actual duties - being able to control someone and being able to fire him are usually synonymous in circles of power.

Respond to this comment

Tarl reckons...

Posted January 19, 2010
This raises an interesting question for trivia in U.S. legal circles for the Axis of Time...

There have been six amendments to the constitution since WWII - 22 through 27. They are:

- Limit of two terms for president (passed while Truman was in office)

- Provide electors to Washington DC (previously, people living in the capital couldn't vote for president)

- Prohibition on charging tax to vote (civil rights measure)

- Vice-presidential appointment (passed during Johnson's 2nd term)

- Right to vote at age 18

- Limits on congress giving itself raises

Many of those are common-sense measures, which I suspect most of the U.S. in 1945 would agree with. I wonder if there would be an effort to bring them forward into the AoT-US constitution, knowing that they eventually did pass in an alternate U.S.

Respond to this comment

SJPONeill ducks in to say...

Posted January 19, 2010
I think they would pass because, as you say, they are pretty commonsense; I wonder what other ones might be added to them either caused by the Transition e.g rights of uptimers, or that perhaps were good ideas that didn't fly in our time line

Respond to this comment

Abigail asserts...

Posted January 19, 2010
Ok I'm going to get abused by anybody here who doesn't think much of the ladies for putting this comment here, except there is nowhere else to put it, so... Dear JB, your lady pets are humbly asking for clean straw and fresh water for our litte room. Also, some heterosexual discussion/banter would be nice:)

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK has opinions thus...

Posted January 19, 2010
its FKN Simple. If Kolhammer gets elected, it means the the PREZ fucked up, and the Kol, commanded the forces and saved the day. SIMPLE.. not fkn rocket science i reckon

Respond to this comment

damian mumbles...

Posted January 19, 2010
Tarl - going by the attitude of the uptime folks in AoT, they would be operating as though those amendments had already been passed anyway, and any use of the fact they hadn't would be regarded unfavorably.

Respond to this comment

Abigail mumbles...

Posted January 19, 2010
(oops, John, I did of course mean : when you're deadline is no longer chewing your soul into a thousand ribbons)

Respond to this comment

Chaz ducks in to say...

Posted January 19, 2010
Abigail: you're making a pretty big assumption there considering the scribes primary career path..

Respond to this comment

drej asserts...

Posted January 19, 2010
Really didn't picture the Hammer as being the sort who would even want the top job. As Savo said, something major must have gone down, which most likely involved smashing Moscow.

Every "eventual" politician alive back then, from the Kennedys to Reagan would be pondering their futures, with many perhaps contemplating running earlier than in OTL.

Respond to this comment

sparty mumbles...

Posted January 19, 2010
SJP -

Vulan pic :-)

TSR2 :-)

Respond to this comment

Tarl is gonna tell you...

Posted January 19, 2010
Hacock - Agreed that the incumbent would need to screw up badly for Pres. Kohlhammer to be a possibility. But Kohlhammer doesn't have to have solved the problem, as much as be seen as the one who *could* solve the problem(s). It's better if he hasn't already solved the problem - In politics, there is a saying that gratitude will buy you a cup of coffee, if you're willing to pay $5.

Damien - agreed. Not only the uptimers, I suspect the courts and congress would also in general be eyeing those amendments as if they were real, mostly because any decisions they made defying them would be over-scrutinized. So congress might simplify their lives by simply passing the amendments as a fait accompli. There isn't anything in them that attitudes at the time would find uncomfortable. Even the poll tax was only used in a minority of districts, not many people would defend it.

Abigail - I guess the only kind of abuse I can come up with for you is to wonder what you consider this is, if it isn't a heterosexual conversation? One of us must be mistaken about the gender of the other :-)

Respond to this comment

Abigail asserts...

Posted January 19, 2010
Tarl- I was being quite throwaway when I said it,(about a hetero..) there was no grenade in it.I wasn't talking about the "gender" of this particular topic. However, if you want to discuss it in the ladies lounge, feel welcome. But I'm not trying to escalate a conversation here about it. Chaz-there isn't an ounce of bad blood/ bad feeling/lack of respect between myself and old JB.he's familair enough with my sense of humor and the q was addressed to him. If he had an issue with me requesting "fresh straw...",which is a joke, he knows where I am. anyway, let you get on with the talk.(which so very interesting btw; I just don't have enough background in it to contribute sufficiently interesting comments)

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK reckons...

Posted January 19, 2010
Abigail...dont start going sot on the fkr now..he does sweet fkn FA all fkn day and then has the fkn audacity to cry like a fkn BIG FKN GIRL, its been a long hard fkn SLOG...

Respond to this comment

Harry the Dog asserts...

Posted January 19, 2010
Matt K, you're quite right that 'That is/was/will be an alternative future where WW2 was not interrupted by a 21st century fleet dropping into the middle of it'. My thoughts were more along the lines of the UK establishment would be aware of what could happen if things went unchecked. Just check out a flexipad!!!

However, whilst contemplating my navel in the smallest room in the house, it occured to me: what about China & the Middle East?

Given the technology introduced by the 21C fleet, China's potential as a formidable superpower would become apparent. Surely the UK would want to reappraise its leasehold arrangement re Hong Kong, given that late 40's China would be embroilled in civil war. Maybe there might even be a larger scale land-grab in China.

With the Middle East, would the US Intelligence/Security world want to stamp out anything that may give birth to an Al-Quada?

Wasn't this the eventual situation that resulted in the Fleet being where it was in 21C time, with a research vessel playing around with wormhole technology.

Interesting yet, could that research vessel (can't remember the name at the mo)turn up somewhere...intact!!!

Cheers guys ;-)

Respond to this comment

John Birmingham would have you know...

Posted January 19, 2010
Enjoying your rosehip beer, havsy?

Respond to this comment

Brian puts forth...

Posted January 19, 2010
No Israel this time round?

How about . . . .no UN?

Come to that . . . .England never wins another Ashes series as 21st medicine will keep Bradman in his whites until 1957. . . .when he retires due to popularity of 20:20.

Hmm . . .the Dutch get booted outa Indonesia. ASEAN may be borne early . . . .will here be a non-aligned bloc?

(Frag rosehip tea . . .real men drink Emperors Garden Green Tea!)

Respond to this comment

Abigail reckons...

Posted January 19, 2010
(...sorry guys, I didn't mean "heterosexual",honestly, I meant, communal or unisex but I couildn't find the word.I only meant it as a compliment -ie, selfishly, I miss having a big communal discussion in here and it sees like a long time between chats- only, it didn't come out as the light/compliment it was supposed to be.)

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK would have you know...

Posted January 19, 2010
yyeeeeep..RADLER FKN WICKED

Respond to this comment

NBlob reckons...

Posted January 19, 2010
Abigail, you have wandered through the looking glass here.

I enjoy the light hearted banter about the bunnies and the grotto. In those conversations the wilder the imagination the better.

But occasionally we get serious. Probably entirely too Geeky serious. If anything I enjoy these what if's even more than the Bunny discussions. They are what made me become a regular.

There are quite a few occasional burgers who only really engage in this kind of tech thread. The assembled brains trust JB has here is remarkable. We have burgers with diverse backgrounds, interests, experiences and opinions with a single locus - JB's work. At least 2 wear millitary service ribbons, several have history or sociology qualifications and many with extensive recreational reading & knowledge under their belts.

I'm 100% sure there is NO exclusion intended. However without the starting knowledge of "the story so far" EG the assasin thread building on Without Warning or this one stemming from JB AOT trilogy you're likely to feel exculded. As an aside it's why Jane sh!ts me so. She trolls from her high walled ward without bothering to understand the back story.

I'm not sending, bannishing nor directing anyone [we have a thread cop & don't need another] but you'd probably get more entertainment in the ladies lounge. It was crafted by Italian craftsmen as a refugia of unadulterated Faff. And if you're serving a refreshingly fruity tea, Havsy may just pop in.

Respond to this comment

Tarl swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 20, 2010
Abigail - when I pulled your leg, I didn't mean for it to come off...

Respond to this comment

WarDog is gonna tell you...

Posted January 20, 2010
An alternate reason for Kolhammer's election might be that its come to light that another 21C (or even late 20C) time traveling cluster has appeared and is in the hands of the Soviets.

With bright minds like Einstein, Dirac and the like all aware that TT can be done, there would have been huge amounts of research in the area aided by the uptimers.

At some point one or more groups *are* going to recreate a time machine and if it skips back with knowledge of the future, post the Kolhammer presidency, then you cause the TT intervention chaos all over again.

More pre-emptive purges .. "you saw the records Kolhammer was going to …”

And the uptimers are now piggy in the middle and no longer hold all (or the most nearly correct) answers.

And if this falls into Soviet hands .. possibly without Kolhammers direct knowledge .. just suspicions because of the near perfect intel that is being used against the US.

OK, hopefully that not too much of a ramble.

Respond to this comment

Sweet Jane Says mutters...

Posted January 20, 2010
Technically, none of the time travelers were born in the US in which they find themselves. Their US is in an alternate reality, different timeline. No time travel can be done in the time line of the traveler.

Therefor, none of them can be president or vice-president (since VP's have a direct line to the presidency). None of them were born in the US of that time line, and one must be born in the US to be able to run for president. Schrodinger would confirm the point. They can only run for president in the US in which they were born.

J.

Respond to this comment

Sweet Jane Says asserts...

Posted January 20, 2010
Don't question my credentials. I have a major in English (emphasis on literature), a minor in History, a minor in Anthropology, and an endorsement in Social Sciences in Secondary Education. Additionally, I've taught World History, American History, and Native American History.

J.

Respond to this comment

Sweet Jane Says reckons...

Posted January 20, 2010
Oh, I also have a Masters in Secondary Education.

J.

Respond to this comment

gtrof mumbles...

Posted January 20, 2010
But Jane have you read any of the books JB has written? Since that's what we're talking about.

Back on topic,

Remember in DT black groups were already swarming Kolhammer with requests that he runs for President. So we can guess that he would get huge black support in the North. Plus I see an accelerated Civil Rights movement so maybe Truman or whoever follows him gives out more rights we may even have Kolhammer getting black votes in the south.

However as others have said Kolhammer needs to follow the process to become president. I don't see him or any of the American military personnel approving rigging the elections. It goes against what they stand for as U.S. servicemen. I would see Kolhammer being picked by the Republicans much like Eisenhower, in fact what if Kolhammer was Eisenhower's VP nomination?

Then you have two heavy hitters, Eisenhower for his role as Supreme Commander, Kolhammer as the man who brought new technology and can appeal to democratic and liberal voters. Plus his anti-communist stance will be attractive to conservatives.

Respond to this comment

SJPONeill reckons...

Posted January 20, 2010
'Sweet' Jane...I don't doubt you have many masters. Can you teach World History, American History, and Native American History all at the same time with any degree of consistent fact? You make a good point re the Uptimers ability to run for President hence the probable need for a Constitutional Amendment to cover them or even just remove that requirement.

Respond to this comment

robW mumbles...

Posted January 20, 2010
I've been biting my tongue since this thread first began. But here are a few thoughts that directly address: "I’m especially interested in how the UK evolves, as it would be a frontline state in this scenario."

I would suggest that the UK, in the 10 years after WWII, could possibly become a great superpower--and a filty rich one at that. In our timeline, the UK was broke after the war. In the AOT timeline, however, the Brits would know about the West Sole Gas Field (discovered 30 September 1965), which was an easy and cheap fuel source for home heating, electrical generation, industrial plant fuel, and chemical (fertilizer) generation. Simultaneously, the Brits could bring online the oilfields offshore Scotland (and probably develop the fields offshore Norway). Within ten years the UK would be producing between 4 and 6 million barrels of oil per day. The UK would be energy independent, have a large, if not huge petrochemical industry, and be a net energy exporter.

The UK would have been the major steel producer after WWII, and given its energy independence, it would make the steel more cheaply than anyone else in Europe, the USSR included. Heavy and light industrial output would follow the same pattern.

After WWII in our timeline London remained the world's largest financial and insurance center. It certainly would have retained that distinction in an AOT timeline.

The UK's relationship to the Commonwealth would have been different, too. Does anyone think that the white status quo--whether right or wrong--in Rhodesia, Uganda, Kenya, South Africa, and other mineral-rich colonies would stand by while they were slowly marginalized? I suspect they would have been much more militant than they eventually were.

In short, the UK would have been a very different place from what it was in the mid-1950s in our timeline. It would have been much, much richer, economically far more powerful, and probably still in control of much of its empire.

Respond to this comment

Matthew K mumbles...

Posted January 20, 2010
H Dawg: "With the Middle East, would the US Intelligence/Security world want to stamp out anything that may give birth to an Al-Quada?"

Yeah not supporting the Mujahaddin against the Sovs! Say what you like about the Soviets at least they had a vision of the future, no matter how wrong headed.

But the Soviet invasion isn't likely to happen this time.

More realistically; Not supporting the house of Saud if it has any truck with Wa'habism, properly conquering and subjugating the whole of the Pashtun area of the Afghan border/ Khyber pass.

Easier said than done.

/Ranting sermon mode off./

Respond to this comment

Matthew K puts forth...

Posted January 20, 2010
And robW, I rather like your rosy vision of alternate UK. Most comforting.

Respond to this comment

Scott asserts...

Posted January 20, 2010
RobW, you are right everyone knows where mineral resources are this time. This means that countries in South America the US, Australia, Asia and Europe even Africa can have access to cheap energy without enriching our Arab unfriends.

Add to this America, Britain and Australia have uptimers to kickstart the tech revolution. Doesn't matter that the Soviets have Vanguard, having examples of tech and the data behind it gives you an advantage, but having qualified men and women who live and breathe the tech means that you can skip all the wtf moments.

Respond to this comment

Quokka mumbles...

Posted January 20, 2010
*NT Bitching Alert*

Just popping in to bitch that the NT seems to have sin binned/spam trapped me AGAIN.

Grumble. Whine. Bleat.

As you were, carry on.

Respond to this comment

robW has opinions thus...

Posted January 20, 2010
Scott, and others:

I doubt they could “kickstart the tech revolution” by much. What constitutes “high tech” today is not simply electronics, it's infrastructure. Take the Interstate Highway system in the US. That was a colossal undertaking financially and industrially and it took 15 years to complete. Developing the smelters to refine the metals that make the alloys used in missile manufacture is complex. The chemical industry took decades just to produce nylon cheaply, what about all the other polymers and plastics?

Here is a real-world example. It isn't as though modern industrial civilization is a big secret. Most librarys have enough in them to get a country up and running technologically. But, given that, why did it take China 50 years to become an industrial power? They knew what the technology was, they had educated people who understood it. Getting the workforce to master the technology, educating the workforce, and putting all the small and large factories that produce the this-its and that-its and widg-its is the hard part. Then, once you have those pieces and parts in place, you have to start scaling production up and up. That scaling would be a hell on wheels and the wheels would fly off the whole thing time after time. I bet by 1955, given all the technical help, they wouldn't be much farther along industrially than 1965 or even 1960.

The social dislocations would probably make governing extremely difficult. In 1945 people in the US still considered social security numbers to be the mark of satan. Imagine telling those people that they would be tracked by computers! That the government could “check them out” and know everything about them in a matter of seconds? They would be burning down Federal buildings and waving pitchforks!

Today we have inured ourselves to the invasions of privacy and iron control that technology has given to government. The people way-back-then wouldn't have become accustomed to it like we are and would be less likely to sit still for it. Heads would roll and governments would fall.

Respond to this comment

robW asserts...

Posted January 20, 2010
Here is one more example. When I was a little kid in the 50s I went to Disneyland's "Home of Tomorrow." It had a so-called "television phone" in it that everyone was supposed to be using by 1965. Well, forget that. Even though the "vision" was in place and we had the technology, by 1965 everyone was still using a rotary dialing phone. Even by 2005 only a few people commonly used video-phone. That was 50 years after the promise....

Respond to this comment

Matthew K reckons...

Posted January 20, 2010
True robW, and that brings us neatly back to one of JB's original points in AoT - the sociological culture clash between the 1940s and the 20wheneverthehellthefleetcamefroms.

Respond to this comment

NBlob swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 20, 2010
SJS "Don’t question my credentials"

I didn't, but now you bring it up (like a rank hairball) I'd like to question your sanity, coherence, capacity for lucid thought, medication, honesty and gender.

I really + honestly couldn't give a flying FCK at a rolling donut about your cultural heritage. Never have never will. You continually make it an issue, must be your issue. Build a bridge and get TF over it.

If you can't make a comment with reference to the original text then you are as welcome as Typhoid in Haiti.

I do wonder what possible satisfaction you get out of your half baked trollery, but then again I don't understand what people get out of scrapbooking, sodomy, or republicanism.

The difference is people with unhealthy tendancies towards scrapbooking, sodomy or republicanism don't directly affect me. You interrupt our stream with inanity and pointless trollery.

I wonder what you have over JB that he permits your continued infestation? Donkey Love isn't the instant social death it used to be.

Respond to this comment

Abigail reckons...

Posted January 20, 2010
NowhereB- Oh yes, I understand; that's fine. I like reading these tech "what if" threads, even though my own attempts at participating are too half- baked to bother really- lol- I do enjoy reading them on an intellectual level and I look upon them in awe at peoples' capacity to grasp all the historical knowledge and to strategise using that. (I occasionally get an idea myself except I own they're not good ideas) I came to JB's blog for many reasons- the lighter, fun threads; the more serious and everything in between. (I like JB's serious discussion blogs myself) And, Cheers Tarl.

Respond to this comment

damian mumbles...

Posted January 20, 2010
NBob - but this love that dare not bray its name, after being denied so long, would be a big, hard thing to admit to, no?

Having majored in English myself, I find it odd that someone would think it appropriate to declare that as a pertinent qualification for the discussion at hand. And I went to a school with a highly regarded English department - though I appreciate the dynamic where a less well known department would make someone more rather than less confident of their standing on graduation. People value the things they have to work harder for, I suppose.

Respond to this comment

andyf mumbles...

Posted January 20, 2010
dont forget that churchill was a bit of a nutter. he wanted to shoot striking miners after all.

how about UK, realising that the empire is too fractious to control easily, either gives independence to its colonies or seats in parliament?

Respond to this comment

SJPONeill is gonna tell you...

Posted January 20, 2010
From a storyline POV, nothing wrong with nutters - they add lots of colour...Maybe Churchill will decide that the Sovs are the lesser of the two evils and ally with Uncle Joe to obliterate all evidence of the Transition and the Uptimers? Joe would be up for a bit of miner shooting as well...

Respond to this comment

Chaz is gonna tell you...

Posted January 20, 2010
Abi, no I was only insinuating that after so many years as a hack ol JB may not have a soul left!!

Respond to this comment

Abigail would have you know...

Posted January 20, 2010
Chaz, lol. Well my view there is the old Jabes hocks it and thye know he's good for te money so they let him take it in and out. I think this time he might have hocked his soul for a Crank2 DVD.

Ok, going out on a limb and ignore if this doesn't fit, but doesn't the Midle East play a bigger role in this scenario? No? See, if we altered history so the Arabs and Jewish people weren't set up against one another over land , wouldn't the outcome , as far as allegiances are concerned, have a major impact on how much the Soviet Union is able to rule? Except, I don't know how much Israeli politics intersected (in the real world) with USSR politics, so that's a major blind spot. One argument I have heard is that France has a natural alliance with the Arab side where the US falls into line with Israeli lobbyists. I don't know, I just think the Middle East would loom large in this alternative world, had the land issue been a non starter.

Respond to this comment

Chaz asserts...

Posted January 20, 2010
Abbigail.

The issue with the ME is that at the time of the AoT books they are now in Allied hands. Now assuming that using the info that the uptimers have brought the Poms esp wish to avoid the headaches of the future, they are going to adjust how the Gulf is carved up post conflict. Now everyone is going to know there's black gold under them there sand dunes so the Allies are going to need to defend the supply against Stalin's hordes.

I just can't see stalin pushing further west when there's alot of resources to plunder in the ME. It would make sense to try and co-opt the arab secular nationalists and top the religious nuts. Avoiding the Suez crisis would be a good idea so tryign to get Nasser on side would be good. Less hard of course if there is no Eretz Isreal.

Of course Gaddafi would need to be removed to keep Libya onside.The House of Saud would be told to lose Wahabism. And Iraq and Perisa would be encouraged to follow a line that would mean te allies defend them against uncle Joe.

I could easily see Beirut becoming a sort of spies paradise where the NKVD, the quiet room and Six all knock heads in some sort of incestuous love/hate cage death match. With a few ex nazis to spice up the mix.

Respond to this comment

robW ducks in to say...

Posted January 20, 2010
Chaz:

Jews, having seen the possibility of Israel, would not rest until the state was created.

Fundamentalist Christians in the US, having seen the possibility of Israel and fulfillment of Revelation, would not rest until the state was created.

And, in any case, British and American Jews, beginning in the 1910s & 1920s, ensured that there would soon be an Israel. It seems like one of those inevitables.

Eretz Israel is probably a multiverse nexus, impossible to escape.

Respond to this comment

Chaz ducks in to say...

Posted January 20, 2010
Rob,

Sorry mate I disagree.Securing the ME will be a primary policy aim for Britian inorder to secure petroleum products. the british at this time are very pro-Arab and so will with the information now available try and ensure security in the region. That will mean that Stern gang and Haganah et al will be removed one way or another. especially as British forces know about their plans for the King David Hotel. thereofre you are more liekly to see a disarming of the jewish brigades because they would be seen as not being trustworthy.

At best Palestine would become a proteo-Ulster with british forces protecting the palestinian arabs against jewish terrorists. At worst forced deportation of jews back to europe.

Respond to this comment

Abigail puts forth...

Posted January 20, 2010
Chaz, you are the gun, honestly. I see this in your posts on a lot of these kinds of geeky things.

robW - See, I agree about the mulitverse nature of an Israeli state; In an alt hist scenario where the timeline starts before the real life fate the "One Arab Nation" , I'd put Israel right smack in the middle. But then see , Chaz makes a good point about the way the Arab countries would be carved into in this scenario just as Israel is likely a multiverse reality, the resources issue would compete big time with that idea , so what we might end up with is a simple rearrangemernt of the pieces, ensuring the same outcome: a ME peace crisis no matter what; back to square one??.

Respond to this comment

What’s up this all this Birmoverse stuff? « The World According to Me… mumbles...

Posted January 20, 2010
[...] thinking about the questions posed and subsequent dialogue on Cheeseburger, I am finding that I am able to view our current environment through a slightly off-centre [...]

Respond to this comment

SJPONeill has opinions thus...

Posted January 20, 2010
You really wouldn't have to do much different to improve the Israel/Arab relationship - the way 'we' did it was pretty dumb "here you go, Israel, you're a state now - see ya, have fun..." and let the Arabs and Israelis go at it for the next 60 years. The promise of a Jewish homeland was made well before WW2 so the expectation was already there; mix in the Holocaust and you have a lot of very capable people (as it turned out) who want a homeland really badly - deporting them all back to SovBloc Europe is probably no more a recipe for global peace than playing with wormhole generators in your basement - it might be fun but it's not going to make you many friends. I think that there is an opportunity in the Birmoverse to do it a lot sharper 'this' time round with a facilitated and managed process that brings the Jews and Arabs together as a new political dynamic rather than just blunder down the same old timeline but with a few more toys...

Respond to this comment

robW puts forth...

Posted January 20, 2010
Chaz:

I think (?) I showed above that the UK would be energy-independent within 5 years, given the North Sea deposits and West Sole gas field. In addition, they had no need of securing the middle eastern oil deposits--they already had them: British Petroleum (Anglo-Persian) controlled 23.7%, Royal Dutch/Shell controlled 23.7%, Compagnie francaise des petroles (CFP) controlled 23.7%, and NEDC (a consortium controlled by Standard Oil) controlled 23.7%.

The remaining shares were controlled by "Mr. Five Percent" or Calouste Sarkis Gulbenkian; although Mr. Gulbenkian was born an American, he was a naturalized Briton, and he would have sided with the British. So, even before the beginning of World War II, the British controlled over 52.4% of the oil in the middle east. There was no securing needed, they already had it all.

As far as Israel, I really do think the support for Israel from American religious fundamentalists would have been overpowering. For the fundamentalists, those were exciting times. Revelation was coming true with the advent of Israel, and the rapture was close at hand. I think people underestimate the power and influence of the "Hella Christians" in America.

There would have been no forced deportations.

Respond to this comment

SJPONeill asserts...

Posted January 20, 2010
If the UK is now on the front line of the AoT Cold War++, might its oil and gas platforms, shipping and other infrastructure in the North Sea be somewhat vulnerable to Sovbloc interdiction, sabotage and general meddling and interference...? In which case they might want to secure a more secure source of oil, like the Middle East; although they will know about the big field off the Falklands, I think that Argentina and Chile might keep them on their toes down that way as well...

Respond to this comment

robW has opinions thus...

Posted January 20, 2010
SJ:

Good question. The British takeover of oil interests in the Middle East--to begin with--was to please the Admiralty and convince them to convert the British fleet to oil from coal. Marcus Samuel, founder of Shell, made that happen (he also made that happen for the Japanese Fleet--he posted his brother to Japan and brought Shell Oil there). The whole Anglo-Persian oil & Mr. Five Percent scenario was constructed to please the Admiralty in the 1920s-1930s. They had to be assured of oil supplies before they would convert from coal.

During the Cold War years the RAF/NATO flew helicopters over Russian trawlers that lurked too close to platforms. The Norwegians did the same. The SAS frequently had drills/exercises that would "take over" platforms. Subs would often pop up and mysteriously vanish minutes later.

Probably the best protection for a vulnerable resource like this would be the nuclear option.

Here is another question: What is to stop the Soviet Union from doing a China on us and running a free market, but centrally controlled? China has certainly proven that you can have a market economy controlled by a bunch of old commies. Although in the case of China, maybe it's a cultural thing.

Respond to this comment

Chaz puts forth...

Posted January 20, 2010
There is something wrong with playing with wormhole generators in your basement? ooops!

Rob sorry I'm sounding very contrary. I'm not certain you could get the offshore fields up and runnning that fast. it is not only a technology issue but a skills/experience one soonest i think you'd be able to get the north sea up and running full steam, would be at least the early 60's. Yes protecting them would be an issue but with suitable CAS and ISR coverage things should not be too bad!

Now one thing I am ignorant on is the actual influnce of the extreme religious right in the 40's. Now I know the 'rapturistas' are now powerful and have been for about 20 years but seriously were they THAT vocal in the 40's? This is why I doubt there would be that much suppoprt in the USA for Eretz Israel esp with the knowledge of what they were capable of. Considering the popular cultural bias against Judaism prevelant from Vladivostock to Paris Seattle I can't see that there would be the same moral imperative to from the state of Israel from the Palestinian Protectorate.

Don't underestimate Stalin. He could easily have ordered the survivors of the camps executed or forced into the bio-zone.

Churchill could create a secular state of Palestine using Ataturks Turkish Republic as a model.

Can't see the Sovs doing a china esp under Stalin. He'll also have disapeered anyone with any entrepenurial skills from uptime 'just to make sure'. Only Mikhail Kalashnikov abnd a few others are likely to survive the purges.

Respond to this comment

SJPONeill ducks in to say...

Posted January 20, 2010
Chaz, I think that the mere existence of Israel in our timeline would be a massive catalyst for it to be created in the AoT line and would generate the grassroots demand for it from both Holocaust survivors and expat Jews...if everyone was aware of the problems that arose afterwards (which were already bubbling away pre-war) then they could have taken steps to ensure harmony and stability in the ME i.e. a transition (small t) force to oversee the handover for the fist decade or so; at the same time invest some $ and tech into greening up the Sinai and everyone might come out a winner.

Agree on the Sov free market - anyone who showed that sort of free thinking and initiative under Uncle Joe would be lucky to get off with an all expenses holiday to the salt mines...

Respond to this comment

Scott puts forth...

Posted January 20, 2010
SJPONeill, Harmony in the Middle East are you joking?

No amount of goodwill negotiation will keep the Arabs and Jews from each others throats. Britain didn't want the Jews to set up Israel. When the Jews declared nationhood the Brits pulled out.

Immediately the Arab states told their citizens to leave the newly created Israeli territory, this exodus formed the core of what later became known as the Palestinian refugees.

Following this the surrounding Arab countries pigpiled on Israel and were handed a monumental arsekicking. Israeli Arab conflict is one of Birmo's nexus' "bound to happen no matter the quantum reality".

Respond to this comment

SJPONeill mumbles...

Posted January 20, 2010
Not much point writing an alternate history if you're just going to have the same old stuff in it as reality...

Respond to this comment

Scott ducks in to say...

Posted January 20, 2010
A bit of a difference between a few believable changes and fantisy. Birmo keeps the personalities of the time true to form. The middle east will be different no doubt. But Jews can't, probibly won't want to stay in Europe. The personalities in the Arab countries are already anti-jewish. The whole riegion has been a battleground since Roman times, with a few lulls. The Brits may encourage a larger Israel, a stable Jewish state may be preferable to instable Islamic ones. Especially with the Brits knowing about the Global Jihad of the 21st c.

Respond to this comment

Scott is gonna tell you...

Posted January 20, 2010
With the Soviets moving in on the riegion the Brits and Americans may think that Israel could give them a reliable stageing ground for operations. Btw me thinks that the security services of all countries and there hit-squads are going to be worked overtime taking out undesirable future oponents. In some cases this will quicken the revolution/movement they are trying to prevent.

Respond to this comment

sparty mumbles...

Posted January 20, 2010
I agree with SJ to a point. The legitamacy of Kolhammer would be questioned probobly in court before the election (HIS people would probobly have thought about it before it occurred to the opposition). I also think he would win that argument (but not before alot of lawers get rich and teh supreme court has their say. Incidently appoining supreme court judges would be much harder given knowledge of future decisions of any prospective candidate.

Respond to this comment

SJPONeill reckons...

Posted January 20, 2010
However the more that events drift away from the 'real' timeline the less relevant will be the future history - it may actually be a cause of conflict in AoT when people may be judged by what they did in 'our' time but which they will not do in AoT e.g. JFK was being judged on his performance as president when he was still only a JG. There is a novel named Replay by a chap called Ken Grimwood (Grafton Books 1988 ISBN 0586074627). I really like it so it's probably dodgy but it is about a guy who gets to go back and relive his life over and over (not like Groundhog Day and without the rodent) - it has some interesting insights into reliving the past with knowledge of the future.

Respond to this comment

Scott reckons...

Posted January 20, 2010
SJPONeill, I remember that one!

Liked it too.

Respond to this comment

Guy is gonna tell you...

Posted January 20, 2010
RobW - a very nice point about the UK oilfields. I had not considered this and you are right that it would provide a huge income stream for the British government just at the time it was most needed. In our timeline the UK was broke after the was and conditions were worse in teh late 1940s than they were during the way. With the potential of the oil-fields the US government/banks would happily lend large amounts to the UK right away in the happy knowledge that Britain would certainly be in a position to repay in full once the oil came on line.

This extra wealth combined with the direct tech boost from the Trident and her crew and the inevitable tech tranfer from the US, would ensure that Britain was stronger and more confident after the war than it was in OTL. The UK would therefore have a stronger voice in the Western alliance (although that alliance would still inevitably be US led). It would seem likely that the British withdrawal from "east of Suez" would not have taken place.

Respond to this comment

Scott swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 20, 2010
What ever happens the western powers are not going to allow themselves to be at the mercy of OPEC, especially a certain kingdom.

Respond to this comment

NBlob puts forth...

Posted January 20, 2010
How ?

Dont get me wrong, I'm as keen on a non-carbon based, distributed generation, electric society as the next man (unless the next man is PNB then I want it more.)

But Imagine trying to build it with post war fabrication technology; little or no industrial ceramics, Polymers are a pipe dream, fine netalurgy like alloys are super specialist items (except Aluminium which is/was made by the mile)and synthetic fibres are coming on stream but slowly slowly. Perhaps worse is the sudden loss of fine control in the manufacture thus in-consistancy of stock materials.

Admirable aim but an interesting job.

Respond to this comment

Scott mutters...

Posted January 20, 2010
From the 3 books we get hints that the war on terror gets a lot nastier. The taskforce comes from 2021: now 11 years otl.

How many new oil fields were found in that period?

Just in the last few years some megafields have been found outside of the middle east, Africa and South America. West Australia is coming along as a major energy exporter. With higher tension in the mid east I could see western countries developing alternate sources for oil and gas. Remember that demand for oil in 1940/50 is a lot lower than today, fields in Australia, Texas may be able to handle demand until offshore ffields can be brought in to production.

Respond to this comment

Scott asserts...

Posted January 20, 2010
Btw, by book 3 Birmo had western armies using nvgs, the airforce using heatseeking missiles and the Havock using mk48s.

10 years later the uptimers would have had time to train at least 2/3 classes of engineers scientists and assorted other skills all of wich are too numerous to mension. That assumes of course that each class takes about 3 years, this might be excelerated. Personally I think they will have a patchwork of 21st tech, internet using phonelines much like us in the early 90s.

Complex stuff like mono bonded whatsits won't sho up till later.

Respond to this comment

Bangar asserts...

Posted January 20, 2010
Something to consider surely it's better to exploit foreign fields of resources quickly and totally and save home resources. Thus you go in exploit and remove the possibility of the enemy having them, mind you this is a two edged sword that the Soviets would wield better.

Respond to this comment

Scott mutters...

Posted January 20, 2010
Bangar, good suggestion.

What we need to do is not give the mid east countries self-rule, extract what we need and then leave, while containing uncle Joe. Now how do we keep our bleeding heart leftys in line while we do this?

*no sarcasm is meant in this comment* Realpolitik will be the order of the day. The only question is can western countries get away with it.

Respond to this comment

Harry the Dog asserts...

Posted January 20, 2010
Hi Yawl

Could be way of course here, but given that the US has now been blessed with a pool of 21C engineering, telecoms and aeronautical (I hope I spelt that right!) talent, would they possibly start thinking beyond Earth!!! No... not Star Trek or anything like that!!!

Putting up a few comms satellites would strengthen Communications within the Western Alliance (if there continues to be one, additionally the early reintroduction of Internet could post a whole raft of possibilities.

I don't suppose o'l Joe would have too many software engineers to hand!!!

Better get back to work now, the Boss is circling!!!

Respond to this comment

Guru Bob is gonna tell you...

Posted January 21, 2010
Sorry - I have been away from the thread for a while I haven'tr checked if this come up again - but someone mentioned Kolhammer as VP on an Eisenhower ticket. But would Eisenhower even get a look in for President? In 1942 wasn't he just another staff officer? In OTL his main work was still yet to happen after the AOT event occured. Without his great achievements actually behind him (ie D-Day, defeating Germany etc) would he have any appeal at all to voters? I can't recall how he is depicted in AOT either...

Respond to this comment

Guru Bob has opinions thus...

Posted January 21, 2010
Another thought - that by the time the fleet is coming back we will have seen increase in knowledge and technology to create cheap and easy renewable energy. Rather then the development of a society and technology that is hugely dependent upon oil. This mostly happened in the 50s and 60s in OTL - the uptimers can change the entire paradigm of western development and dependency upon oil (and therefore the Middle East) through introduction of widespread cheap and easy renewable energy technologies such as hybrid cars, wind power, solar power etc.

This combined with ideas around community development would also have huge impact upon development of what has become the 'third world' in OTL.

Respond to this comment

SJPONeill ducks in to say...

Posted January 21, 2010
Re 'cheap and easy renewable energy', hallelujah, brother!! So very right...

Respond to this comment

robW swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 21, 2010
The problem with the 20th century was that petroleum was the cheapest form of fuel to produce "energy". Drill a hole in the ground, wait for the oil to spew out, light a match, and bingo! You are transforming chemical energy into heat energy.

The most efficient energy source is electricity from a nuclear power plant. Unfortunately, the public isn't educated about what nuclear energy really means, the politicians are lawyers and are not known for their understanding of science, and the designers of nuclear power plants are engineers who are great at designing gizmos but wouldn't last 30 seconds as a bona fide bench scientist. Yep, there is a huge difference between science and technology, and rarely do the two meet. It's a shame, really, but it's true.

Also, oil is the backbone of modern materials science. Oil is the source of pigments, paints, polymers, solvents, plastics, wow, the list goes on.

So-called "renewable" energy sources (energy cannot be "renewed") are complex and not necessarily efficient. They come at a high price and few are willing to pay that price.

Another huge problem would be how to train the engineers and scientists in "system science" which is more or less the paradigm in place today. In programming "system science" is called "object oriented programming" and it didn't come into play until the late 1990s. A program "object"--let's call it a gizmo--has certain methods of execution and data properties; say, for example, an object called a "timer" that calculates differences between dates and executes calls to subroutines.

The "Object" concept is also used in manufacturing. Take, for example, the K-car in the US Chrysler line up. There were about 15 or more cars based on the K-Car concept (chassis, drive train, etc.). The different models were "elaborations" upon the basic "object" design.

Add to this the concept of supply and fulfillment--Just in Time or JIT, for example. In the 1930s & 1940s industry warehoused parts, they didn't have the communication precision to manufacture and transport parts just as they were needed.

In short, you would have to reeducate the local savages on EVERYTHING THEY KNEW and break ALL THEIR ASSUMPTIONS. A good engineers in 1945 could calculate cosines, tangents, and secants in their heads; they had excellent drafting skills, could print wonderfully, and they could draw a diagram that would know your socks off. Good engineers in 2010 usually can't do any of that, but they can pick and choose appropriate "object" systems; identify the interfaces; and integrate the disparate systems into a whole. They go by the same name, but it's a completely different skill set.

Respond to this comment

Scott is gonna tell you...

Posted January 21, 2010
If I remember right Birmo had the ships in the 21 c fleet using fusion. Copy larger models for civilian use. Take longer but.

Also, the anti-nuclear movement doesn't exist yet. Before it gets going get companies to develop safe nuclear energy, using 21 c knowhow.

Respond to this comment

Guru Bob would have you know...

Posted January 21, 2010
Rob - thanks for that but we also have to assume that the Uptimers have had an extra 10-15 years to work on 'renewable' energy sources and make them cheaper and easier to use. For example it is my understanding that the solar energy panesl which we are currently being encouraged to purcahse would have been completely unaffordable 10-20 years ago - in fact solar energy panels are now used on a wide variety of things (garden lamps, public telephones, street lights etc) that would have been unimaginable just 10 years ago due to cost factors.

The dependency of the US economy on Middle Eastern oil is now seen by both sides of politics as a serious economic and strategic weakness of the that country. Given foreknowledge of that issue surely Kolhammer would work towards ensuring that it had less relevance in the other timeline? The zone would be geared up towards producing cheap and easy energy.

Besides which the uptimers would have been acculturated into being adverse to messy heavy petro-chemical based industry and would want to avoid the whole issue happening 'again' if possible. It woudl be another cultural clash - just as significant as their attitudes towards race, sexuality and warfare.

Respond to this comment

SJPONeill ducks in to say...

Posted January 21, 2010
Allegedly there are also many technologies that have been bought up and hidden away by the oil companies (apparently they are all stored in the next bay along from the lost Ark of the Covenant - neuter the power of the oil lobby from Day One of the post war era and develop these alternates to oil and coal based power. If the demand for fossil-based fuels are reduced dramatically, it is likely that most non-ME oil resources could satisfy demand for other oil-based products; this might equal a level trading field for oil meaning prosperity for the Gulf states but not the stranglehold they develop in this timeline. Take away the extravagant opulence of the Gulf states might also make them more stable as the haves v have-nots rift never develops...

So far as new engineering paradigms are concerned, they can be taught - the next AoT book is looking at 10 years on so consider how much we have had to relearn in the last ten years as technologies have evolved - I think that the 1940s engineers of the AoT universe would be up to it - in the free world anyway; probably a different story in the Sovbloc.

Respond to this comment

sibeen asserts...

Posted January 21, 2010
SPJ, you're right. Any decent engineer who was trained in the 30s, 40s or 50s has probably got a better maths grounding than engineers around today, and I speak as an Electrical Engineer.

Give these old timers a few basic primer courses on the new tech, print them out the textbooks and watch them devour it.

Some of the engineering services probably don't require any form of extra training. Tell a Civil engineer that you now have access to all these new high strength materials and they would rub their hands in glee and set to designing even bigger and better bridges, roads etc.

The biggest hurdle would be in the material sciences.

Respond to this comment

Sweet Jane Says swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 21, 2010
The next book in the series would have to be steampunk. Steampunk would definitely increase your fan base. Go for it.

J.

Respond to this comment

NBlob swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 21, 2010
I know it is perilously close to steam punk, but I love the idea of hand made cruise missiles running on bakerlite processors.

I was ruminating about the relative complexities of technology.

Is (That's a question!) Is there a significant difference in the complexity and therefore time to train new technicians / operators, between internal combustion based systems & new whizzo electric motors?

I was thinking that electric systems are compound technology, IE alternator / charger / generator - battery -DC/AC inverter- motor etc etc etc, compared to in an IC motor where if you have spark, fuel & timing you are on your way.

Would this lead to a resistance to uptake the new systems?

On a tangerine, instead of investing in the super interstate highways for truck based transport, imagine if a Kohlhammer presidency invested all that & more on high speed rail networks. The state mainatins ownership of the tracks & private co's provide rolling stock.

Respond to this comment

NBlob swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 21, 2010
WWAAARGHHHHH

Respond to this comment

SJPONeill puts forth...

Posted January 21, 2010
WHn I first started with Telecom in 1983, I was on the first electronics course that they ran in NZ. Although we fried a lot of very expensive (then) chips til the concept of a anti-static strap caught on, 90% of the old and bold who had spent their careers working on mechanical switch based systems picked up the theory and practice of electronics really quickly so I don't think that there would be a big problem especially with the GI Bill and new school leavers having that technology as all they know...

Respond to this comment

Matthew K puts forth...

Posted January 21, 2010
That sounds like socialism Nbob! ;)

Respond to this comment

NBlob has opinions thus...

Posted January 21, 2010
Not Socialism Matt! Crikey, that'd make me like a Red or sumthin!

Respond to this comment

Guru Bob is gonna tell you...

Posted January 22, 2010
RE: I know it is perilously close to steam punk, but I love the idea of hand made cruise missiles running on bakerlite processors.

So what are the difficulties of developing an IT industry jumping straight from valves to silicon chips? Bypassing 60-70 years of industrial and technological development in one hit?

There is also an underlying assumption that a 50s era population will want their i-phone and hip hop music.

Which comes to another thing. In this timeline the underlying social movements that led to large black communities in northen industrial cities like Detroit won't actually happen will they?

I suggest that there would be a widespread backlash or 'techno-phobia' which could drive the Uptimers out of the states into off-shore retreats - say Cuba where they coudl work with a young firebrand named Fidel Castro to set-up a utopian future community...

Respond to this comment

NBlob reckons...

Posted January 22, 2010
GBob, I understand that the knowledge is available to the zone & America at large, however I think there would be a prolonged period in which the supply lines would have a great deal of catching up to do.

Making Magnesium Alloys essential for airframe manufacturing(just as an example) require very very fine control of the % of ingredients, and temps at the foundry. I don't wish to sugest that late 40's manufacturing was at 1500's levels, but the advances would need to be massive, fast & deep. Convincing the Temps that this level of accuracy would be challenging. Without consistantly accurate raw materials, manufacturing would be hamstrung. Sort of like the difference in tolerances in miliing- componants in Rolls Royce Jet Engines are accurate to fractions of MM, farm machinery +/- several mm is acceptable.

Any irregularity in the electrical insulation or heat dissapation properties of the silicon base stock would make 21C chip manufacturing impossible.

Respond to this comment

damian swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 25, 2010
NBob - re internal combustion versus electrics... There were already machines and systems using the petrol/diesel generator, batteries, electric motor combination that we'd call hybrid today. The first generation of German WWII tanks did this, IIRC. FWIW there were electric cars before there were petrol ones, just no adequate battery technology.

Alloys for modern battery making, I have no idea how producible they'd be in the 40s, though one would think there'd be at least a few uptime engineers who new the chemistry well enough to give a clue to the 40s engineers, and they'd have something to get along with working together. The same applies to microelectronics, in truth. Among the uptimers there will be folks who understand the basis of a transistor well enough, but we're only talking a 10 year jump there. Integrated Circuits have a history of industrial development that one feels would be hard to short-circuit (ha), but enough knowledge from the 21C could speed things up a little.

There already were cruise missiles (aka V1) but electronic control with valves would lead one to suspect the robustness of the valves. Relays and some sort of primitive transistor would work but we're adding weight, whether that's bad or not I don't know.

Respond to this comment

Matthew K has opinions thus...

Posted January 26, 2010
A last, non technical, point from me. Who watches the watchmen?

The British Empire, as it still would be in the AoT universe, obviously needs reform if it is to be kept going. Some kind of free trade federation where all countries are equal, maybe with a rotating presidency like the EU.

However. To avoid the mistakes of ex colonies in our timeline the leadership in many of these countries needs supervision in order to be kept competent and honest; some countries like Ghana and Malaysia could well be superpowers by the 21st C with disinterested external policing of the independance of the judiciary and honesty of police, civil service, elections and politicians.

Dominions such as Australia and Canada clearly did not need such an eye kept on them, even before 1939. Indeed they could be an invaluable part of the federation's supervisory framework of public standards.

How to find a polite but firm way of putting this into practice would be the problem.

Respond to this comment

Willet's warrior is gonna tell you...

Posted January 27, 2010
Who has what cards to play by the end of the third book has already been determined. The americans were most resistant to the uptime social progress including military technology. Early in the second book Kolhammer is attempting to convince the navy to fix their sub torpedo's and the army to adopt a basic assault rifle. That resistance lasted until the invasion of Hawaii. Contrast this with the specialised advantages gained by the other allies. The Australians who end up with doctors trained in advanced medical techniques and world class forensics (with the training from Dr. Francois and the W.C.I.U.).

Like the Australians repeling IJN forces the British were quick to utilise 21C weapons. That's what they are best with. I would forsee the Brit's further developing the weapon's that served them well in operation sea dragon and democratising some trident tech. If they can get land based versions of the Trident's sensors and anti-air missile systems that will free up the trident to focus on the continent. Also don't forget that Karen Halabi works for a zone company focused on getting satelites into orbit.

Satelites will improve fleet comunications and provide orbital imaging, possibly in real-time for 21C ships.

Halabi will personally make sure the Trident gets access to these satelites, while keeping the (soviet controlled) Vanguard in the dark.

Respond to this comment

Madoc ducks in to say...

Posted February 23, 2010
Folks,

Late to the party... oh well.

First up, the Soviet Union. Not only did Uncle Joe do a massive land grab that got him the bulk of Continental Europe he also did a massive purge of anyone and everyone who "the future's records" proved were against him. That means the post-WW II Soviet Union is an even more hideous place than in OTL. Anyone who evidenced even the slightest drive or competency in the OTL post-Stalin years would either have been pre-emptively liquidated or is off in a gulag being worked to death.

In post-WW II Russia there'll now be no originality or anything other than truly blind and slavish devotion to following orders from Moscow. And this'll be at exactly the time when the Soviets need even more local command flexibility as they try and absorb the new lands they've just grabbed.

Which means it'll go bad all that much faster. Which means they'll get nastier all that much faster. And, due to the future records, the West will have all the proof it needs of this to trot out and around.

In short, things will be going to hell in the Soviet Union at record speed. They'll have more to administer, fewer capable administrators, _AND_ they'll also have a very active insurgency being spread nation-wide back by the Quiet Room's resources. Not a good combo for the Reds.

And, speaking of the Reds, Soviet espionage efforts will be laughable in the timeline. First off, all their existing networks will be rolled up. All their existing assets will either be arrested outright or compromised through and through or be treated by Moscow as having been compromised through and through. Not only will the West know about them all, the West will also have that super-truth serum to administer and thus be able to extract the necessary information from even the most ardent Soviet spy.

Yes, the Soviets will attempt to put more agents in place. Developing worthwhile spy networks takes years. And in this case the West will be thoroughly on the look out for it. We weren't in OTL and that's why the Soviets got in so deep. in the AoT universe, that's simply not the case. Plus, with the release of all the information about how gawd-awful the Soviets are, they'll find it a lot harder to recruit fellow travelers and useful fools to their cause.

I don't see China going Red. Japan's vaporizing defeat and the Soviet land grabs in that theater dictate against the US being so hands off as to allow it. Instead, I think China would be a battleground arena for the US to "contain" the Soviets and "not let history repeat itself" even though it had yet to happen.

Overall, I see much of the leftist political causes, movements, organizations, ideologies, and individuals all being hugely discredited as a result of the Up-Timer's info. Sure, social progress is great, but all the repetitive failures of the Left would be highlighted in those records.

And since we're speaking of a rather more "conservative" time in general, I think it'd be pretty easy to make a very strong case against such leftist policies.

Thus, a lot of the travesties and political disasters inflicted by the left - particular when evidence shows Communist support of those things - will be crushed before they ever arose.

Look for England to remain pretty much on a war footing, for it to be "on the front lines" in Europe, and for it to go whole hog for what ever wealth building opportunities it can find from Up-Time.

I'd also look for Stalin to push harder faster and nastier. With all his spies cut off, with knowledge of the Soviet Union's eventual demise, and with knowledge of how the West is running away economically, militarily, politically, and socially, there's no hope if he bides his time. So, a sooner war than a later one.

And if the big K is The Man by '52, then I'd say he was a war-hero President and that the Soviet Union is nothing but multiple nuke craters by that time.

Madoc

Respond to this comment

Respond to 'The Union of European Socialist Republics.'

A Sweet Jane alt-hist challenge!

Posted January 9, 2010 by John Birmingham
Yep, you heard me.

She too has reached faff saturation point and so she tweeted the other day asking what might have happened if the US had entered the war earlier in 1941. Specifically, in January when Japan attacked American Samoa and Pago Pago in small scale raids.

But the US, as Jane points out, did nothing. Why? What would it have meant if we might have responded?

(Excuse the typo in the earlier version of this post. I wasn't really awake. Possibly still not).

154 Responses to ‘A Sweet Jane alt-hist challenge!’

Quokka puts forth...

Posted January 9, 2010
Perhaps if you put links to Mayhem's and Madame's blogsites here it would contain the faff?

Respond to this comment

Paul Nicholas Boylan mutters...

Posted January 9, 2010
I have it on very good authority that everything would be exactly the same as it is today, except that every American would have red teeth (something to do with chewing some narcotic nut native to certain Pacific islands).

Respond to this comment

Paul Nicholas Boylan is gonna tell you...

Posted January 9, 2010
I still maintain that a better, more substantial alt-hist discussion would center on exploring if Pizzaro's invasion of Peru would have succeeded if, prior to the invasion, the Incas had escalators.

Respond to this comment

Tarl would have you know...

Posted January 9, 2010
Entered the war earlier? The U.S. was attacked on 7 Dec 1941, and fought a battle at Wake Island lasting through 23 December. Or does merely declaring war and fighting not count as entering the war?

As for operations in Pago Pago and Samoa, what assets would we have carried them out with? Aside from the aircraft carriers which were so fortuitously absent from Pearl Harbor, most of the pacific fleet assets were somewhat damaged on the day the war started.

Respond to this comment

Abe is gonna tell you...

Posted January 9, 2010
Not sure I understand. Didn't the US enter the war in Dec 1941?

Pearl Harbour had been bombed and Wake Island had fallen by the time a Japanese sub lobbed a few shells at Pago Pago in Jan 1942. Yes the Americans were worried about the comms chain across the Pacific to Australia and NZ, which is why they landed some marines there later that month.

I think a more interesting question would be what would have happened had the allies worked out the significance of Rabaul to the Japanese plans and reinforced the small Australian garrison there.

Respond to this comment

Bangar would have you know...

Posted January 9, 2010
Let's assume that America enters the war before Pearl Harbour. America would have a fleet to use immediately, a fleet that would follow the old "battleships are kings of the battle" thinking instead of using what they had aircraft carriers and subs.

You would also have to question the will of America without the unifying caused by the sneak attack.

Respond to this comment

John Birmingham puts forth...

Posted January 9, 2010
D'oh. 'Scuse typos. She would have meant Jan 41. I'll fix it up. That'll learn me to do these things before I'm fully awake.

Respond to this comment

Murphy would have you know...

Posted January 9, 2010
1942? Is SJS in one of my history classes? That sounds like the sort of question I get, right up there with, "Did we fight the Japanese first, then go after the Germans?"

Ah, no. It kinda sorta happened at the same time. Sheesh.

Sitting here pondering the matter, the only point at which I can see the US going to war sooner would be 12 December 1937 when the USS Panay was sunk on the Yangtze River. That said, while public opinion turned against Japan here in the US, the powers that be worked very hard to avert an escalation.

Things might have turned out differently though. The US was not quite at the same level of pre-war mobilization in 1937 as it would be by 1939-40. That said, I think Bangar has the jist of it about American willpower. The urge to remain neutral and pacifistic was very strong right up until Pearl Harbor.

Respects,

Murph

On the Outer Marches

Respond to this comment

Abe reckons...

Posted January 9, 2010
JB: "She would have meant Jan '41"...

--------

I can find plenty of stuff referring to subs shelling Pago Pago in Jan '42 but nothing in Jan '41.

Maybe because it didn't happen until Jan '42?

Respond to this comment

Moko ducks in to say...

Posted January 9, 2010
IT's interesting to me that Americans entered the war before America did. Those are the ones that need special mention. It seems to me America entered when they were lacking other options.

The Battle of/for Britain was fought and won before the Yanks reared their ugly heads. They only started considering supporting Britain - offically - after that battle. Roosevelt sent William Donovan to make sure they were still alive. He went back and said, "Yep, most of them" and suggested Britain be supported by the yanks because they had a chance of survival. Gee, thanks.

...so umm... what was the topic again?

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK has opinions thus...

Posted January 9, 2010
OK..so just to clarify, so we dont get bucket loads of FKN FAFF and all sorts of other shit. SOMETHING happened..WHAT specifically WHO cares. It was of sufficient magnitude to DRAW the US in early..eg...41.

Lets also assume, that the US fleet was not touched, so the catalyst might be an island attack or sinking of a ship somewhere ELSE on the planet. Sufficient to outrage the US to levels caused by Pearl Harbor.

Would the US have adopted full the doctrine of CARRIER warfare, or would it still be centered around the Battleship. Not sure there, though they were already well on their way. pearl caused them to accelerate this as they had no other offensive assets. Same goes for the subs.

Respond to this comment

Murphy mutters...

Posted January 9, 2010
I think the evolution to carrier based warfare would have occured differently if the Pacific Fleet remained intact, perhaps not as fast. However, the Pacific Theater was not the only driving force. Keep in mind that Pearl Harbor was modeled on the British attack at Taranto, Italy. With a sizeable amount of the Italian Navy destroyed, the British could breathe a little easier in the Med.

That attack, btw, was pulled off using biplane torpedo bombers flying off British carriers.

So I suspect that sooner or later, the US would have used their carriers. And if they didn't, debacles akin to what befell the US Asiatic Fleet during the opening days of the war, or other elements of ABDACOM would have rattled their cages enough for them to think, "Maybe air cover would be a good thing."

Respects,

Murph

On the Outer Marches

Respond to this comment

Abe mutters...

Posted January 9, 2010
Pearl also showed them that it works, HAV. The American advocates of carrier-based warfare have noted that Pearl made the point better than they ever could.

If the US had been drawn in early, it probably would have been by the Germans and maybe this would have meant more resources would have been shifted to the Atlantic sooner, leaving the Pacific even more exposed.

Maybe.

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK is gonna tell you...

Posted January 9, 2010
Japanese attack on Philippine Dec 8, 1941..American units present etc. If you utilise this as the tipping point for US entry then...well, it gets very interesting actually.

The probability of a us TF being dispatched and clashing with Japaneses Naval forces is high. Given the speed with which the initial occupation took place, you could well see a US carrier TF with heavy Battleship numbers going up against Naval and LAND based Japanese units as well.

I figure the initial units would be light from the US, so you could possible have the token TF being wiped out.

THAT would then be a major initiator for US involvement. the MASSACRE of a US Naval TF off the Phillipines..oh yes, that would do it.

Respond to this comment

NBlob is gonna tell you...

Posted January 9, 2010
Perhaps a current era Japanese Plasma state physiclist gets sick of SJS so creates a time travel device. He goes back in time to the Japanese-Russian war and joins the JIN. He knows the outcome so performs heroic deeds, gets recognised, climbs through the ranks, is made captain of a submarine, then goes to Pago Pago and bombs 8 types of Frack out of the rock from under which SJS's grandfather would eventually crawl. Thus saving us from subsequent infestation & irritation.

heh heh heh

Respond to this comment

Quokka swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 9, 2010
Clap clap.

Give this man a time portal, for services to mankind.

Respond to this comment

NBlob mumbles...

Posted January 9, 2010
I'm with Murph on this one.

Major changes in doctrine work slowly through the bowels of an armed force.

EG; In WW1, despite them being technically spectacularly crap, aircraft proved time and again to be deal breakers. Yet there was very strong resistance to their uptake pretty much until the Spanish Civil war. Lingering concepts of honour & officer code resisted uptake as unsporting or whatever. Until the Dorniers utterly smashed the opposition flat. Even then there was some remnant resistance.

See also; Anti sub convoys, Japanese & Allied. Field triage. and many many other ideas that were proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, yet the moustache twirlers back @ HQ resisted.

I suspect that pearl harbour A proved the efficacy of carrier based attacks & B reduced the pacific fleet to a point where options were limited - that old "If the only tool you have is a hammer all problems look like nails" thing.

If the US came into the Pacific War earlier, then there would have been no Pearl attack. If no Pearl Attack then the Americans would probably have stuck with the battleship big guns doctrine. Closing to close to defenders & placing gun platforms at risk. Resulting in further capital ship losses until the message got through.

Respond to this comment

damian puts forth...

Posted January 9, 2010
I see a lot of doctrinal uncertainty about whether the battleship(s) is(are) part of the escort for the aircraft carrier(s), or the carrier(s) is(are) part of the escort for the battleship(s). Would we see the sinking of an insufficiently escorted battleship as a pivotal moment (like the sinking of the Hood or the Bismark)? Weren't the allies exceedingly wary of the Yamoto and Musashi throughout the naval conflict, air war notwithstanding?

On the other hand, if the US came into the war earlier than December 1941, might they have averted the invasion of Singapore?

Respond to this comment

Abe asserts...

Posted January 9, 2010
JB No need to apologise - you had it right, well that is you faithfully represented what she suggested. (I saw Jane's bleetings over the last week or so and thought to myself at the time that she was on drugs.)

Respond to this comment

Paul Nicholas Boylan mumbles...

Posted January 9, 2010
I'm reading an alt-hist novel called 1901 postulating a German invasion of New York just after the US acquired former Spanish territories and, as a consequence, had its military assets nowhere near New York. I'm enjoying it. It hits on many of the same issues of military doctrinal change mentioned above.

Respond to this comment

Bangar puts forth...

Posted January 9, 2010
Damian the battleship's were king of the fleet the carriers would be guard duty.

Respond to this comment

Stephen asserts...

Posted January 9, 2010
I'm with NowhereBob and Murph as well. There's the story of the wargames pre WW2 where the carrier craft sunk the battleship(s), but the ref was told to change the results, because that wasn't the doctrine.

My father and I were once discussing early WW2 in Australia. At some point there was a plane crash (near Canberra,I think) which killed a bunch of the older officers from WW1. My fathers opinion was that it was the best thing that could have happened, as it opened up a bunch of command slots for people who weren't still fixated on infantry charges and trench warfare.

Respond to this comment

Annette ducks in to say...

Posted January 9, 2010
Bloody good question Sweet Jane. I wish my Dad was still alive so I could ask him.

Respond to this comment

Sweet_Jane_Says mutters...

Posted January 9, 2010
The US could have utilized those few days to warn Hawaii of attack. Roosevelt knew it would ultimately come to war. We were in the middle of war-like manuevers before the "Day of Infamy."

President Roosevelt froze all Japanese assets in the United States well before December, 1941. Commercial relations between Japan and the US were severed. The US Navy began deploying Marines to augment its garrisons late in 1940. The advance party of Marines who arrived at Pago Pago had been formally activated at San Diego and other United States naval bases. The potential utility of Midway, Wake, Johnston, and Palmyra was recognized, and surveys were conducted and plans made for the construction of base facilities, airfields, and seadromes during 1939 and 1940. In effect, the US was at war with Japan.

The short notice of Pago Pago would have made no difference to anyone that mattered in history - but, it might have made a great difference to the Arizona and other crews of Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt had his clear and unarguable cause for war. Did a few days make a difference to him?

J.

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK reckons...

Posted January 9, 2010
mmm..thing is a bit long..but hey..SHIT HAPPENS. Some info and thoughts

The more I have thought about this the more I have diverged from my original conclusions. I suspect, the overall scale of the pacific war would be significantly less, but first we need to understand, that between Jan 41 and December 7, 1941 there was a significant escalation in external events too the United States, possibly the most notable event, sending the Japanese on the path to planning a First strike on the US pacific fleet base in Hawaii was the oil embargo, resulted of the Japanese invasion of Indochina.

Although Mainland china was already under attack from the Japanese armed services, the US and IJN (Imperial Japanese Navy), had for some time been closely watching each other and were very aware of the other doctrine for fighting.

Specifically, each ones doctrine for the utilisation of Aircraft carriers. It should be noted that the upper echelons of the IJN considered the carriers secondary for operations against the USN and were quite prepared prior to December 7, 1941 to fight an attrition campaign against sortie-ing USN units as they transit across the Pacific West, to what was considered a guaranteed reinforcement of the US Facilities and Garrisons in the Philippines.

Additionally , the Imperial British forces, largely centred on Malaya were also aware of Airpower issues , but high ranking official’s such as the outmoded and very often meddling Sir Winston Churchill overrode those in the Admiralty who could well have made a significant difference. The Imperial British Navy was far ahead in terms of emerging technology and war-fighting doctrine than the British Army, who we all know as a result of history was ill prepared to fight what was then a modern war. Certainly also unawares of the type of war they would encounter against the battle tested Japanese Army and Imperial marines, who were at that point, possible some of the most battle tried troops on the planet outside of other countries units operating in the European theatre.

I’m not going to delve to deeply in MacArthur, because the simple fact is I hate the muppet, there are too many historical details which show he was out of touch and in my opinion a very poor commander who got lucky, had this man actually been required to think it would have spelled disaster for most persons under his command. I shall however castrate this git at a later point in time.

Back to the British, the Aircraft Carrier ( Fleet Carrier) who’s name escapes me, was detailed in December 1941 to sail with what we know as force Z, that’s the two Britich battleships Repulse and Prince of Wales who were subsequently sunk after three separate air attacks by Japanese Aircraft heading for Singapore. What most people do not know is that the British Fleet carrier had earlier run aground going into Kingston harbour in the West Indies and was delayed for 12 odd days due to repairs.

Now had the carrier sailed as it was meant too with the other force Z units, experts suggest it may well have met the same fate but I am not so sure. The carrier was carrying Sea Fury Hurricanes, whilst no match for an A6M Zero, these were not the units attacking Force Z, they mainly consisted of twin engine Bombers and Torpedo bombers. Both of which the Hurricanes would have had no issue in dealing with.

The Americans would certainly have deployed fleet units to the Philippines, how this would have been brought on early in 1941 who knows, if you utilise the Islands as the catalyst then we need to think of forward deployment and resupply of the Western Pacific defences. Additionally, you would then also consider the possibility of the Force Z deployment early as well.

Japan on the other hand owing to its thirst for natural resources and the really big one OIL, would still have ventured down the same path, we need to remember that at the beginning of 1941, the IJN had no less than 10 carrier platforms, 6 of which were the largest FLEET CARRIERS and the other 4 being light carriers. On top of this at the same time an additional 6 further carriers were under construction, add to this a fleet of the following.

10 Battle ships, 4 of the Kongo Class, 2 Fuso Class, 2 Ise Class, 2 Nagato class and another 3 Kongo class under construction during 41.

18 Heavy cruisers

20 light Cruisers

108 destroyers

68 Fleet size submarines

90 Patrol Ships.

Matched to, 660 Fighters

330 Carrier based strike aircraft

240 land based twin engine bombers and 520 sea plans or flying boats.

Possible the greatest collection of combat experienced pilots as well.

The USN Pacific Fleet which was under normal circumstances based at San Francisco had been relocated to pearl owing to the increase in tension, this bares little influence on this as we are talking now about Jan 1941 and not December later that year.

The US Pacific fleet at the start of 1941 consisted of the following units.

9 Battleships

3 Fleet Carriers

12 Heavy cruisers

8 light Cruisers

50 destroyers

33 submarines and 100 patrol boats.

However, the TOTAL USN Fleet units were as follows.

17 Battleships

7 Aircraft Carriers and 1 escort Carrier

18 heavy cruisers

19 light Cruisers

171 destroyers

112 Submarines.

As you can see the whole US surface fleet outnumbers the IJN although not significantly. As we all know, it was the US construction machine which the Japanese always worried about and the end game was too consolidate their conquest territories before the US could fully bring its production mighty to bare on them.

OK. I will give you a spell here , phase two is WHAT would the US shift to the Philippines and would the IJN have intercepted them Enroute ?, what would the British have done as well.

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK asserts...

Posted January 9, 2010
FK!, I hate retractions. SEAFURY Aircraft were not on line till much much later, SEAFIRES, which were the navalised version of the Spitfire were but not Till 1942, which means the poxy arsed Fulmar Aircraft were on deck of the British carriers at the time. Hmmm...might still have been ok...

Respond to this comment

Bangar mutters...

Posted January 9, 2010
Nice work H, I like your thinking.

I still say unless the US was actually engaged in a shooting war with Japan, Pearl Harbour is still a possibility, there was more than enough indication it was going to happen but the info was ignored, stalled, not acted upon or acted upon inappropriately.

And without Pearl is there enough will for the US to go to all out war. Also what difference would it make if Germany and/or Italy don't declare war with the US?

Respond to this comment

Sweet_Jane_Says swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 9, 2010
How would anyone believe it an insult to refer to either of my Grandpas as Samoan? Big deal... What if they were Samoan? Yeah, both were Samoan Muslims and known Japanese spies.

J.

Respond to this comment

Sweet_Jane_Says swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 9, 2010
Do you know how many Samoans play NCAA or professional football in the US? Do you know how many Samoans are in the US military? America loves her Samoans.

J.

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK reckons...

Posted January 9, 2010
OFFS JANE..Back on the fkn meds. plenty of Saomoans here as well..fkn great people

Respond to this comment

MickH ducks in to say...

Posted January 9, 2010
SJS, Your parents were known Jap spies?

Really?

Amazing. And you are still alive too!

Respond to this comment

MickH puts forth...

Posted January 9, 2010
Wouldn't have made too much difference. America was always going to win against the Japanese through sheer industrial might no matter what happened at sea in the early days. the date of victory is all that would have changed in the end/

Respond to this comment

Peter Sill mutters...

Posted January 9, 2010
No ifs, ands or buts. Why meander from what was supposed to be? I find this topic a waste of time. I can tell you of a thousand stories of why history is supposed to be the way it is. You're spinning wheels on this topic. New one please.

Respond to this comment

Moko puts forth...

Posted January 9, 2010
Jesus, what a fucken tool you are Pete. You know you wrote that retarded comment on the blog of an alt-history author, eh?.

What the fuck are you thinking JB?. Raising alt-history what ifs here. Mate, sort your shit out thanks. Pete said so.

Respond to this comment

DrYobbo swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 9, 2010
Sorry Janey, the capital of Polynesia is still Auckland. More Samoans in NZ than in Samoa. Or the US for that matter.

Sill, have to back Moko on this, what the fuck are you on about? You have any idea what JB actually does for a living?

Respond to this comment

NBlob reckons...

Posted January 9, 2010
Man, what if's are some of my favourites.

That's why I'm so conflicted.

SJS I didn't know your Grandndad was Samoan.

Did he know how to play nicely with others?

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 9, 2010
I smashed a good couple of hours today at my discretion I might add, just checking things out and doing what if, still not finished. its an INTERESTING exercise. Mr Sill is entitled to his view, thats fine, just dont expect me to be a fan and don't expect me to have any WHAT SO FUCKING EVER REGRETS when I tell you to FUCK OFF YOU FUCKING LEMON HEADED MUPPET ARSED FUCKWAD!. If you are unhappy go fukcing find another SAND BOX

Respond to this comment

Scott puts forth...

Posted January 9, 2010
Don't hold back Havock tell us how you really feel!

I've looked at ww II and the only way to change the outcome is to introduce externals such as alien spacebats or temperal interference.

Anything else only moves the end date.

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK would have you know...

Posted January 9, 2010
Scott, I have no cause to CHANGE me SPOTS at this point..actually no cause at all unless the argument is suffeciently logical that I realise my stance is wrong. Which has happened before.

BUT, if ya don't like the movie..leave as they say, co's those that are STILL watching just me be into it. Pissing and moaning like a git, well, that WILL GET A RESPONSE.

As for the end result. Well that WOULD CHANGE, if you CHANGE elements prior to the opening of hostilities. THE RESULT, may be quicker..but sure as shit iot would still be a Different result other than winning. Its whats left on the field, how many died, what got sunk, who was left with what, who will not be killed and invent the warp drive ya ya ya .. Interesting exercise as far as i am concerned.

Respond to this comment

savo swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 9, 2010
There is the possibility that if the US joined the war in early 41, that they could have got a rush of blood to thier collective heads and, with its battleship doctrine (aka Gunship diplomacy), parked some of them in Tokyo bay as a show of force/psy.ops/pissing contest which should end the tit for tat attacks, and bombarded, say ... , the Tokyo Central Railway Station causing civic disruption and showing just who speaks softly and carries a big stick and, accidently or otherwise, offed the railway stations big time neighbour, the Emporer. Where would that take us?

.

Additionally Yamoto doesn't get his 15 minutes of fame for catching the yanks with their pants down as Pearl Harbour could not happen. but Midway would undoubtably end up in Imperial hands (especially with Kolhammer's intervention) which may lead to a Japanese invasion of the West coast

.

or

.

the early intervention of the US big ship harrasing IJN convoys shortens the conflict in the Pacific making it a minor side show for Europe.

.

I remember the first Samoan I had any dealings with ... he tried to eat my skull. I was fingerprinting him and he grabbed my head and bit it. A bit unnerving and really made my Sergeant cross.

Respond to this comment

Bangar reckons...

Posted January 9, 2010
Savo, so we call that as definitely ID'd as a 'lation of the saccharine one.

Respond to this comment

Scott is gonna tell you...

Posted January 9, 2010
If America entered the war earlier it would not have been as committed to kicking arse as in otl.

That is until the Jap cariers sink enough US battleships for the message to get through.

No need to get into details as others of you have covered it above.

Havock I love alternate history . . . as long as the author has done basic research like Birmo, Eric Flint and Harry Turtledove obviously have.

Respond to this comment

Catty is gonna tell you...

Posted January 9, 2010
And now I shall stand upon my soapbox and flaunt my ignorance for all to see.

America should have entered the war in 1939.

That's what allies do. They back each other up. None of this "why should I offer any assistance to England? Japan hasn't done anything to America, so England can get stuffed."

Typical seppos. Willing to start wars to get what they want, unwilling to support Allied wars unless they are personally affected. Which is why I think we should withdraw ALL Australian defence force personnel from every American military conflict. Because NONE of it has anything to do with us.

But I should answer the question, and that answer is "nothing different". Considering the technology and weaponry of the time, travel constraints, production and materials restrictions, political due process etcetera, as far as I can tell the war would have played out exactly the same as it did, in the same time line. If, however, they had backed us up in 1939 like they should have, the whole bloody thing would have been over by Dec 41, and Pearl Harbour would never have been bombed at all.

Respond to this comment

Scott mutters...

Posted January 9, 2010
Catty, you are spot on, the tech time of production of equipment would have made only small differences. Times of battles and beach landings would have change, that's about all.

Now that I've said that I believe that a lot more sailors would have been killed as the USN continued using battleships and ignoring carriers. That is until the message finally got through.

See how long the bullshit over defective torpedoes took to be cleared up.

Speaking of has anyone else read Richard North's Ministry of Defeat: The Tale of the British Occupation of Iraq?

Refusing to learn from mistakes is alive and well in the modern British military.

In fact when I was reading the Axis of Time series I got a feeling of deja vu.

Respond to this comment

Bangar asserts...

Posted January 9, 2010
Catty, if the US went to war in '39 they wouldn't have lasted the distance. They were "leave us alone and we'll leave you alone". This is why I keep referring back to "will" Pearl Harbour galvanized the American people.

As to allies I don't believe Australia or any other Commonwealth member had an alliance with the US and at the time Lend/Lease was a way for the US to help without truly being involved.

Further though I may like Churchill's quotes what is forgotten is his concern was for Britain, not the Empire, not the colonies, if everything but Britain was bled dry to ensure Her survival it was necessary in his view, so his attention was in Europe and thus his desire to retain Australian troops though they were needed at home (our home, which the British had promised to protect by securing things like “Fortress Singapore”)

Apologies dear I'll try and get it cleaned up in the morning, the home brew is kicking in.

Respond to this comment

Scott swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 9, 2010
Sorry Catty, I got to disagree with you about withdrawing from the Afghanistan war.

Definitly problems about how it is being run.

Funny thing is the Amonium Nitrate that is being used in roadside bombs comes from aid agencies. Secondly the logistics train crosses the Khyber Pass and contractors pay the Taliban protection to allow passage.

Kind of like America paying the Germans not to sink convoys crossing the Atlantic. If you want to know a bit more Catty may I suggest the defence of the realm blog lots of background information.

Off topic, sorry guys.

Respond to this comment

Scott mutters...

Posted January 9, 2010
Btw this isn't just America's war, this is a war about freedom.

Bin Ladin and his kind have offered us 3 courses of action.

Conversion to Islam, submission or war.

Considering how women are treated conversion is out.

Considering how non Islamics are treated in majority Islamic countries that's out.

Sadly this leaves war.

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK mutters...

Posted January 9, 2010
Nah SCOTT your fine..no stress here.

I accnot help but wonder, the galvanising incident would most likely have taken place when america sortied ships to probably the Philippines or somewhere else in westpac. IJN had good intel and would have tracked surface fleets if possible. At least a picket line of sorts with Subs.

Earlt on the US and most navies were not real swift on ASW

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK puts forth...

Posted January 9, 2010
Left the bit I was getting too out. the loss of a MAJOR surface unit or two would have got the ball rolling I think

Respond to this comment

Scott is gonna tell you...

Posted January 9, 2010
Indeed Havock nothing like a bloody nose to get someone pissed.

I still ask however how many ships will need to be sunk before a change in doctrine is forced through.

The Pearl attack was the catalyst in otl. After Pearl real panick set in.

Without public fear of Japanese units landing on the West Coast the pressure for change may take longer to develop.

A taskforce being sent to Davey's Locker will have less of an impact in the Philopines then the fleet being hit in it's home port.

Respond to this comment

WalkingShaw has opinions thus...

Posted January 9, 2010
Think of it another way... Imagine if the Japanese hadn't have bombed Pearl Harbour or Pago Pago. What would the world look like today. Forget about what earlier entry into the war by the American's would have done. Japanese non aggression toward the US - sit back and suck on that for a while.

Respond to this comment

Scott is gonna tell you...

Posted January 10, 2010
Now that I think of it, were the attacks in 1941 a probe?

Seeing that the Americans didn't react maybe the Japanese saw this as a sign of weakness.

If America reacted by sinking a Japanese ship or two maybe the Japanese would have held back.

The realists in the Japanese military and government knew that a war with America was unwinnable.

It seems that the cycle is set in stone.

Militants and tyrants see the restraint practiced by the western democracys as decadant and weak. They push and push and eventually cross the line then wine when the inevitable arse kicking arrives.

Look at Iran as a modern example. The West keeps negotiating setting deadlines then extending them and not following through when Iran plays funny buggers.

They will cross a line! perhaps not for a couple of years maybe a decade but the patern of behaviour is set.

Respond to this comment

El Coqui would have you know...

Posted January 10, 2010
I want to add my US $0.02 cents.

A significant portion of the ships sunk at Pearl, especially battle-wagons, were re-floated, rebuilt and put back into action. However, I doubt that we could had done the same if they had been lost during deep sea fleet action. Specially, if they operated under the battleships and their big guns doctrines with no serious air support. We were seriously outnumber in carriers in the Pacific at the time and the casualties that we got at Pearl will have paled in comparison.

Would the death of thousands of American sailors (probably about 10,000) and dozens of ships in one campaign galvanized the country as surely as Pearl Harbor did?

Respond to this comment

Murphy mutters...

Posted January 10, 2010
To chime in behind El Coqui(who is right, Pearl was ultimately a failure due to the failure to destroy A: Carriers B: Fuel Depots and C: Dry Docks). Many of those vessels were brought back on line. Furthermore, many ships used during the war were authorized under the various Naval construction authorizations in 1939 and 1940. Those ships, to include the Essex Class Carriers, would start to come on line by late 1942.

I think probably a better alternate history question to ask is this.

"What if Nagumo had launched a third wave to destroy the fuel depots and dry docks?"

I suspect that the war would have lasted far longer. Without the resources at Pearl, a victory at Midway, a narrow stroke of luck as it was (because on paper, by sheer numbers and experience, statistically the Japanese should have won the day) would have been impossible.

Respects,

Murph

On the Outer Marches

Respond to this comment

Sweet_Jane_Says swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 10, 2010
NZ has more Samoans...? The 2000 census showed a total population of 57,291 people in AMERICAN SAMOA. American Samoa is the southernmost territory of the United States. Yes, we still have territories, and it means that all the citizens of AMERICAN SAMOA are considered duel citizens of the US.

J.

Respond to this comment

Sweet_Jane_Says would have you know...

Posted January 10, 2010
The US was gearing for war as much as possible in 1939. Remember, the US had and still has a large populace descended from Germans. Even Ford and Lindbergh were Nazi sympathizers.

Fate gave us two favors, the Chinese and the Russians. The numbers of both kept the Japanese and the Germans respectively diverted and diluted. Americans, the Tigers, that flew with the Chinese before Pearl were able to gain valuable experience and intel. They were also able to arrange a few landings for Americans after Pearl.

It's doubtful that any earlier entrance into WWII would have been a deciding factor. We needed time to get on our feet after the Great Depression, we needed time to retool our technologies, and we needed an event to flare our righteous indignation.

J.

Respond to this comment

sparty is gonna tell you...

Posted January 10, 2010
I suspect it would have been harder to have the Europe first strategy (even without Pearl harbour) with the consequences that would insue.

Respond to this comment

andyf mutters...

Posted January 10, 2010
what if the IJ had negotiated some sort of non-aggression pact with the US, as Stalin and Hitler did?

with the spectre of a another war with Germany rising above the horizon, would the promise of peace in the pacific have caused the US to allow the Japanese the resources they needed?

And when the US was fully comitted against the Nazis....

Respond to this comment

Havock would have you know...

Posted January 10, 2010
Bout to start work so gotta reply at length later

US hq frowned on the tigers and intel gained was minimal. Not exactly geared up the US I would have said. Fleet units dispatched to west PAC would have been attacked in transit by IJN

the war would have been shorter as the roll back of ohm units would not have been so extensive, Singapore might not have fallen and THAT would have been a big bonus. Even if it did , interdiction of units in sth china sea would have been possible from Philippines, although I think inn would have committed vast troop numbers to that campaign. The Dutch east indies oil field were vital as well to ohm plans. Fkn word selection auto shite. Ohm should be IJN dam

Respond to this comment

Boscolamb ducks in to say...

Posted January 10, 2010
A better question might have been, where were most of the Essex class carriers built - the East Coast or West Coast of the continental US (or the Gulf?)?

If accessible on the west coast, could Japan have followed up a successful third strike at Pearl Harbor (as Murph suggests), by sending its fleet to hit our shipyards and scrap our future fleet before it ever gets completed? The reconquest of the Pacific would have been jeopardized by the loss of that carrier fleet. The victory could be delayed by years, or even result in a negotiated peace with Japan.

I suppose such a Japanese raid/strike might be severely hampered by logistics, but it is interesting to ponder...

Respond to this comment

Bangar mumbles...

Posted January 10, 2010
Andyf, but what causes the US to go war in Europe?

Japan attacks Pearl

America declares war against Japan

Germany and Italy declare war against America nor required by their alliance

America is in the war in Europe

Respond to this comment

Boscolamb mutters...

Posted January 10, 2010
For anyone interested, in the last few years, a few 'what-if' books have postulated either an occupation of Pearl, or a third-strike by the Japanese. Gingrich and Forstchen wrote "Days of Infamy", and Turtledove also wrote a book with the exact same title.

Robert Conroy wrote "1942" about the Japs occupying Pearl Harbor, and a US counterattack - 'Jimmy Dolittle-style' raid, to trap the Japanese fleet in Hawaii. Interestingly enough, Birmo endorses the book on the front cover.

Respond to this comment

Tarl has opinions thus...

Posted January 10, 2010
Even after the correction, I still have no idea what we're talking about.

Pago Pago wasn't shelled until the war was on. I can't find any references to American Samoa being attacked before either, which is no surprise - the Japanese were actually rather careful to avoid escalation with either U.K. or U.S. before betting it all on a single overwhelming strike.

So for a trigger, we have to imagine either an accident (which isn't really likely to cause the level of outrage necessary for the U.S. to go to war), or an earlier atrocity which would. Since the Japanese actually weren't stupid (just pushed into a corner making them desperate for any change), presumably that earlier attack would also sink a considerable chunk of the U.S. fleet.

The only other way for the U.S. to enter the war earlier would have been something happening in Europe, which again would focus efforts on Europe rather than the Pacific.

Either way, unless we postulate that the Japanese attack manages to make such overwhelming gains that the U.S. navy loses most of its bases in the Pacific, the war doesn't change much. Our ability to build hardware was eventually going to wear the Japanese Navy down, unless for some reason we gave up earlier.

About the only big change that could happen from entering the war earlier is to end up ready to invade the Japanese Home Islands before we have the bomb ready. That probably leaves enough carnage to seriously change later history.

Respond to this comment

Peter Sill has opinions thus...

Posted January 10, 2010
Moko Chill Have a mocha. Don't choke on it. You cannot change history but you can change yourself. Reconcile with your defeats and gradually change your shortcomings to become your blessings. Stressed backwards is desserts.

Respond to this comment

Sweet_Jane_Says ducks in to say...

Posted January 10, 2010
Well, Birmingham, it's time to close shop. It seems certain denizens have decided that this site no longer deals with speculative history, military strategies, and "what-if's" in general. Has anyone informed your agent and editors?

J.

Respond to this comment

Moko has opinions thus...

Posted January 10, 2010
Pete, if you want me to ACTUALLY chill don't be a condescending arse clown.

You're the fucking Gomer that said:

"No ifs, ands or buts. Why meander from what was supposed to be? I find this topic a waste of time. I can tell you of a thousand stories of why history is supposed to be the way it is. You’re spinning wheels on this topic. New one please."

Sorry mate, but that's the dumbest thing I've read so far this year - excluding the random shit that comes outta SJS head - all year so far.

...and a MOCHA?. You just went down ANOTHER rung.

Respond to this comment

andyf has opinions thus...

Posted January 10, 2010
well, to be fair, the US had to be bribed into the war vs germany

and mr sil is an.....errr. what IS the word I am looking for? suggestions?

Respond to this comment

Abe ducks in to say...

Posted January 10, 2010
Oh so you were being speculative, Jane?

My mistake, I just thought you were wrong.

How silly of me. I should have remembered, YOU ARE NEVER WRONG.

Respond to this comment

Scott asserts...

Posted January 10, 2010
Tarl, that is a point I haven't thought of.

America entering the war a year earlier would have left the Yanks with a interesting problem.

Invade the main islands and except the million plus casualties that was projected or sit back and bomb the living shit out of everything in sight and wait for the bomb.

Another point was the USN blockade of Japanese shipping towards the end they were even sinking fishing boats.

What impact would a prolonged blockade have on Japanese civilians?

Unlike the Germans the Japanese were overly dependent on food from external sources. Yes shortages still occured in Germany but it is easier to sink ships and boats than stop a horse and cart on a country road.

Pete if this topic is not to your liking may I suggest the Blue Ladies Lounge.

SJS you've opened a can of worms, whether a invasion of Japan is launched or a prolonged mass bombing-starvation campaign is used the eventual casualty tally may be so high that the face of the Pacific would be unrecognisable to otl.

Could you imagine America treating a defeated Japan as it was in otl after millions of deaths. Especially with Dugout Dug leading it.

As an aside I could not imagine him surviving long in command with the casualty count as high as it would have been.

He sheltered the Emperor and made sure that Japan was treated a lot gentler than it's behaviour deserved.

Modern Germans are aware of the attrocities committed by there country. In contrast most Japanese bearly know anything about the war.

Respond to this comment

Peter Sill is gonna tell you...

Posted January 10, 2010
Actually I was raised in Australia but I'm American. Your choice of colonial English lives up to Australia's reputation as a penal colony and I use the term lightly. Your convict choice of vocab. astounds my limited intelligence. I do forgive your country for putting forth people like yourself. It's a shame to even think I lived there. What a relief to be back in the good old US. So I'm not your mate, naver have and never will. My family did more in WW2 than you'll ever comprehend. Do you comprehend this, mate? Thank God the Yanks saved your sorry asses as you ponder on meaningless trivial uneventful passe matters.

Tha last name is Sill like Fort Sill. Read up on it, mate.

Macarthur was very much right. What takes an American fifteen minutes to make a decision takes the Aussies two weeks. Never made Aussie jokes. This could be a start to breaking this mundane pursuit.

Respond to this comment

Moko ducks in to say...

Posted January 10, 2010
Unless you've got something constructive to add to the topic why not just fuck off?.

Add stuff and become part part of the conversation, or don't, but right now you're being a troll of the worst kind. You don't like the topic, you've made that clear, and now you come back trolling for reactions trying to sabotage the whole thread. Why not just respect our right to discuss whatever the fuck we want without needing your approval?.

Whatcha reckon?.

Respond to this comment

Scott swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 10, 2010
Pete, he may have said that but the important difference was the decision that took 2 weeks was more likely to be right, impulsive decision making has caused a lot of grief over the years.

If Dugout Dug was so good why hours after the Japanese attack on Pearl was his airforce not only on the ground but hadn’t been dispersed to revetments. They were all lined up wingtip to wingtip just asking to be ttrashed.

He spent more time making press releases saying what a legend he was than actually fighting the war.

If it hadn’t been for the mass of men and logistics flooding in to the Pacific the Americans would have been in big trouble.

Respond to this comment

El Coqui asserts...

Posted January 10, 2010
Attack on the US shipyards? No happening, I can't see the IJN risking the necessary forces by exposing them to land based aviation. The Army Air Corps doctrine of the times was to intercept attacking fleets at least a 1000 miles from shore. This led to the development of Flying Fortresses and Liberators. Can you say turkey shoot?

Respond to this comment

DrYobbo asserts...

Posted January 10, 2010
Sill, (a) fuck off, (b) Moko's a Kiwi (as anyone who knew their arse from their elbow could tell from his name) hence not a convict, and (c) fuck off.

Jane, not questioning that American Samoa is a territoru and it matters, but the fact remains there's more Samoans in NZ than in NZ. As I'm sure you're aware there's no ethnic difference between the people of American Samoa and those of Samoa (or the Samoan diaspora who you're referencing in the states.) There are (roughly) 115000 Samoans living in NZ, 70K in the US and 40K in Australia. Was wrong on the resident population of Samoa itself, it's larger than I thought, around 180K.

Respond to this comment

Peter Sill is gonna tell you...

Posted January 10, 2010
My granddad was a Major in the Burma Campaign. When everyone else was cryin' in their boots or pissin' in their pants, my granddad killed those who needed to be and far, far more in the line of duty. I respect men and women who go the distance for the truth. Waddaya reckon, hey mate?

Respond to this comment

Scott puts forth...

Posted January 10, 2010
Birmo, for the next topic maybe have Macarthur die in a plane crash a few months before Pearl?

A competent general in charge of the Filipino defence may have slowed down the Japanese onslaught.

Moko, good call!

Respond to this comment

DrYobbo puts forth...

Posted January 10, 2010
Yeah my granddad fought on the Kokoda Trail bayoneting the Japanese and watching his mates dying of dysentery. What the fuck does anyone's grandfather's war service have to do with the fact that you're a cretin with nothing to add to the discussion?

Respond to this comment

DrYobbo reckons...

Posted January 10, 2010
Jesus Christ, I'd rather have heard from Peter Gill. At least he was a handy number 7 for the Gold Coast Seagulls back in the day.

Respond to this comment

Moko ducks in to say...

Posted January 10, 2010
Everyone in here has someone that did whatever where ever in their genealogy Pete.

Respond to this comment

Scott is gonna tell you...

Posted January 10, 2010
El Coqui, agree with you about the IJN not risking an attack on the US mainland.

Have a problem with the efficacy of the Flying Fortresses and Liberators on ships.

In the Coral Sea engagement high altitude bombing was less effective than dive and torpedo bombers. Secondly taking those bad boys in for a low altitude run is asking for high casualties. Precision bombing especially in reguards to ships needed a lot of work.

Respond to this comment

damian is gonna tell you...

Posted January 10, 2010
It's easier to make a fast decision when you know less and take less into account. That's not always bad - sometimes you just get lucky, other times it's important to make a decision fast, and whether it's right or wrong is less important. But even in the latter case, it's best if that happens because you've acknowledged it rather than because you're just a tool.

I for one do find some of the stuff that has come up in this thread interesting, especially remarks Murph and El Coqui. Havock, the RN had more than just the two capital ships sunk by aircraft in the South China Sea, wasn't it 4 or 5? Not enough to hold off the IJN even with better air support, and the invasion came overland. Would a USN TF have met the same fate? Would an early US entry into the war have changed Japan's strategic aims?

Respond to this comment

NBlob is gonna tell you...

Posted January 10, 2010
Looking at a map of East ASia.

I struggle to imagine any series of events that could have allowed the US to successfully defend the Philipines.

But I'm still trying to come up with something.

Interesting comment from El C on army air protocols. I had wondered why IJN never attacked West Coast USA, like they did Sydney.

One of my grand-dads was a Dr involved in liberating allied POW camps in Burma & Thailand, the other bodged aircraft back together from wrecks. Who t f cares. They have both been dead for 20 years.

Respond to this comment

Peter Sill swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 10, 2010
I felt like withholding comments from you Dr. Yobbo in all due decency. Yet you had to add spark to what I wasn't going to say. You will want to hear from me more. So please make the appropriate apologies and allow harmony to return to its rightful place.

Respond to this comment

damian puts forth...

Posted January 10, 2010
What are you here for, Mr Sill? Is there some point that your apparently random gibberish is working toward? You clearly don't like Australia or Australians, so why are you posting here at all?

Respond to this comment

DrYobbo reckons...

Posted January 10, 2010
Oh man I'm fkn dying of ROFL here. Sill, you're a funny man. A funny, funny man. But seriously, there'll be other threads. Some of them you may even make sense in. So be a good lad and fuck off out of this one. A'ight?

Respond to this comment

Scott asserts...

Posted January 10, 2010
Lord Bob, the Americans would not have successfully held the Philippines.

My suggestion however is that the Japanese could have been slowed down.

Imagine if the IJN and the IJA had been tied down in a battle of attrission a thrust south may have been delayed or have less resources allocated to it.

Respond to this comment

Peter Sill reckons...

Posted January 10, 2010
stfu

Respond to this comment

Abe is gonna tell you...

Posted January 10, 2010
My theory is that, faced with a stupid error to which she can't or won't fess up, Jane has reinvented herself as another arseclown.

Waddaya reckon, hey mate?

Respond to this comment

damian is gonna tell you...

Posted January 10, 2010
As with a few of your remarks above, Mr Sill, this last one is not clear about to whom it's directed.

Abe - thus confirming the longstanding theory that the singular trollish person is in fact a hairy, late-40s overweight male person living in Albuquerque and posting, for the most part, in his semen encrusted underwear.

Respond to this comment

Abe would have you know...

Posted January 10, 2010
If I lived in New Mexico I would be too busy eating to be a troll.

Respond to this comment

DrYobbo asserts...

Posted January 10, 2010
JB's in Albuquerque? Sounds like he took a wrong turn at Albu... erm, never mind.

Respond to this comment

Sweet_Jane_Says reckons...

Posted January 10, 2010
The US lacked the supplies and a reliable route of transport to keep the Phillipines free of Japanese occupation. Conversely, the Japanese could not invade the American mainland for the same reasons. The Japanese did take a few Alaskan islands and abused the native inhabitants. It was a factor in the US drive to extend a reliable highway system into Alaska from the US West coast.

J.

Respond to this comment

Naut asserts...

Posted January 10, 2010
Sill'y me old boy, please don't withold anything! So far you have been pure, unadulterated trolling GOLD.

I anxiously awaiting the next installment of your obvious genius.

Respond to this comment

lostatlunch reckons...

Posted January 10, 2010
This is what is wrong with the interweb, there is a nice little community.. and some blow-in comes in, does not get some of the references from an Australian orientated blog, everyone takes offence, no-one tells any good jokes about Australians & Americans... and you cant send a decent electrical shock down the line to a troll.

An Australian Combat Field Engineer Sergeant and a U.S Marine were on exchange duty and were sharing the latrines.

The Aussie Sergeant finished first and walked out without washing his hands. The U.S Marine watched in disgust, finished his squirt, washed his hands and walked up to the Aussie Sergeant and said. " In the U.S Marine Corps we were taught to wash our hands after a leak".

The rather large Aussie Sergeant replied, " In the Australian Army mate, we were taught not to piss on our hands ...! "

Respond to this comment

Moko would have you know...

Posted January 10, 2010
lol

Respond to this comment

Abe has opinions thus...

Posted January 10, 2010
LOL Good one. In a similar vein...

An Aussie was on a driving holiday in NZ when he happened upon a local giving one of his sheep a rogering on the side of the road. Pulling over, the Aussie said, "Hey mate, where I come from we SHEAR our sheep!"

"No way, bro. I'm not shearing her with innyone," came the reply.

Respond to this comment

Moko has opinions thus...

Posted January 10, 2010
Twas actually looking for a joke to boot Abe in the bals with, but found this little gem unstud...

HAd to change the names:

John Key, Prime Minister of New Zulland, is rudely awoken at 4am by the telephone.

"John, its the Hilth Munister here. Sorry to bother you at this hour but there is an emergency! I've just received word thet the Durex fectory en Auckland has burned to the ground. It is istimated thet the entire New Zulland supply of condoms will be gone by the ind of the week."

PM: "Shut - the economy wull niver be able to cope with all those unwanted babies - wi'll be ruined!"

Hilth Munister: "We're going to hef to shup some in from abroad... Brutain?..."

PM: "No chence!! The Poms will have a field day on thus one!"

Hilth Munister: "What about Australia?"

PM: "Maybe - but we don't want them to know thet we are stuck."

Hilth Munister: "You call Kivun Rudd - tell hum we need one moollion condoms; ten enches long and eight enches thuck! That way they'll know how bug the Kiwis really are!!"

John calls Kivun, who agrees to help the Kiwis out in their hour of need.

Three days later a plane arrives in Auckland - full of boxes.

A delighted John rushes out to open the boxes. He finds condoms; 10 unches long; 8 unches thuck, all coloured green and gold. She then notices in small writing on each and ivery one.........

MADE IN AUSTRALIA - SIZE : MEDIUM

Respond to this comment

Bangar is gonna tell you...

Posted January 10, 2010
Oh well,

In an outback pub a Texan was explaining how it took him five days to ride around his property when an old farmer piped in, I had a horse like that to, had to shoot the bastard.

Respond to this comment

Moko mutters...

Posted January 10, 2010
Sorry, last one.

While waiting to finalise their Australian residental status, two Afghanistani men start chatting. As they part, they agree to meet in a years time and see who has adapted better to the Australian way of life.

True to their word, they meet after the year is up. The first says to the second "We have integrated so well...yesterday, I ate a meat pie and drank a VB while watching my son play Aussie rules"

The second man replies "F**k off, towelhead"

Respond to this comment

John Birmingham reckons...

Posted January 10, 2010
Hey all. "scuse my abscence. Been having a family weekend after many months of working sat/sun. I do have some thoughts on this topic, having had to give quite a bit of thought to alternate WW2 timelines a few years ago, for reasons we need not go into here.

On the face of it, I lean towards the old soviet 'corretation of forces' thesis, which holds that things will turn out how they will turn out regardless of small changes at the periphery. The industrial and demographic strength of the US, for instance, was simply too much for Japan to take on. You throw in the British Empire and they are fucked. Eventually.

But I cant help thinking that Pearl is such a pivotal moment, a fulcrum of history if you like, or a nexus point if you're a crazed multiverse believer like me. So much flows from it. It is possible, as a few people have said, to posit outcomes where Japan gets to a negotiated settlement if the US is not engaged enough to throw the switch from Isolationism to Total war.

Taking Jane's original idea, that they sortie well before Dec 41 (bugger the dates and typos, it doesn't matter, it's the idea that matters), I can see a situation where the IJN totally pwns the US Pacific Fleet somewhere out in the deep, takes Midway. Reduces Pearl to rubble and mass grave sites. Cuts off Australia.

And sues for peace to consolidate its holdings.

Isolationist sentiment in America might just have a chance at running FDR out of office for his historic blunders and war mongering, turning the Pacific into Tokyo's Co-Prosperity Sphere for a hundred years.

Doesn't mean it would have happened.

Just that it could have.

Almost anything could have.

Would almost make a great novel. If there was time travel involved.

Respond to this comment

Quokka asserts...

Posted January 10, 2010
I haven't read all this yet - and given my level of laziness after spending a good part of the day in the spa perhaps I won't read it at all, ever, but I must point out that if the yanks had entered the war sooner and Pearl Harbour wasn't bombed there'd be one less stinky Ben Affleck movie in the world.

Which must surely be a good thing.

Oh and did you all know that Roxxy the Sex Robot is now available. Article on the ABC news website (it keeps me so well informed) - shopping hints for all you lonely hearts and/or perverts available on Youtube.

Carry on.

Respond to this comment

Quokka asserts...

Posted January 10, 2010
I'm only thinking of you, JB. Surely it's a Geek feature. She's fully computerized and comes with multiple personalities.

Or so they say.

Which was enough for me.

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 10, 2010
I would posit perhaps with a different mind set, maybe different advisors that the US could in early 1941 take the step of reinforcing US units in the Philippines. This would be on the basis of creating a sufficient defence to give the IJN and Military in general pause.

The dispatch of a large surface fleet would perhaps be mitigated by diplomats not wanting to inflame tensions, so a TF centred around perhaps one or two carriers, 2-4 Battle ships and accompanying surface warfare units. The British in consort with the US would send a similar surface group, a Carrier, 2-4 battle ships and the associated units as well to Singapore.

What would be a given, based on knowledge and the Japanese high commands already decided courses of action would be the attack and hopeful destruction of the Fleet from the US in transit.

This would then be followed up by a strike on Pearl and Midway at the same time. The IJN has sufficient surface units to dedicate a two carrier strike group for the destruction of the US TF in transit and still have two carrier groups with two carriers each hit the US home islands of Midway and Hawaii.

I would postulate that the Midway TF, would be accompanied by an amphibious assault force as well. The retention of the islands would be problematic in the longer term, however, it would serve as a very big bargaining chip, not to mention an early warning post and continual thorn in the side of the US.

The RN would in all probability loose its Tf in the south China sea or in defence of the Malay peninsula and history would perhaps repeat itself, although, the Taking of the Philippines would consume much vaster quantities of men and materials.

This invasion would unfold as stage two, given the pre emptive moves on the United States part in resupplying or fortifying the islands, I would have the attack or left hok, flanking manoeuvre, thus bypassing the Philippines initially. Take Malaya, take Borneo and attrit the US forces on the Philippines. That’s mainly airpower. Once the strike groups ( TF’s) have returned from hitting Hawaii and Midway, they would then be utilized in the systematic destruction of US surface units and airpower across the wholes of the Philippines.

Given they have the ability to sortie at least three powerful surface warfare groups with carriers, I would have one deploy from Midway and roam between midway, Hawaii and the perhaps Guam. Assuming I didn’t stage an assault onto those islands to create defence in depth and further strain any resupply attempts.

The assault south would cease at Borneo, perhaps jumping south one more step to Indonesia to secure the bottom of the territorial gains and place pressure on Australia and create shipping issues.

From this point I would then if I was the IJN and high command sue for peace.

Respond to this comment

Moko puts forth...

Posted January 10, 2010
I can't see Japan suing for peace after Pearl. It was already on a rampage through Asia. America had already had an embargo on raw materials on Japan by 1941, and possibly circumstances lead to the Japanese defeat at Midway more than anything with 2(?) carriers missing and they couldn't replace manpower quick enough. Even if they took Hawaii could that have been any GREAT advantage to them?.

Respond to this comment

Moko mumbles...

Posted January 10, 2010
Sorry strategically yes, but material?

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK is gonna tell you...

Posted January 10, 2010
Moko, if you work on the basis of Bring the timeline forward to Alt history, its a possibility then that Pearl might not have happened in the same manner. Rather, they hit the infrastructure and not the ships as minimal were present perhaps. Whats also possible is that, the severe losses to the TF dispatched to the Phillipines initially outraged America. BUT!, this didnt cause them to be as outraged. You can then utilise the attack on Pearl and say , massive civilian casualties as the catalyst for public outrage and mobilisation. Perhaps even the removal of the sitting president as well.

Then toss in some twists, like perhaps having the muppet headed, I cannot command anything, leave my planes on the ground in the Phillipines MacArthur, thats GENERAl, when he couldn't command a fkn row boat in Charge of the Hawaiian defences and then he gets removed as well. Castrated would be better so he has no offspring.

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK mutters...

Posted January 10, 2010
Ref Hawaii and taking the Island, NO, from any perspective that’s long term, Hawaii is a loser. its the denying freedom of movement short term and the forcing of the US to commit assets to its retaking, thus delaying the resumption of offensive operations elsewhere. its a loser for the USN short term, both from an asset point of view and its utilisation for maintenance and also in that public opinion would dictate its immediate retaking, or certainly it retaking prior to any other offensives. And that there is interesting, would that have caused issue for the US and its commitment to Europe, had Hawaii been taken, or perhaps Midway taken and Hawaii just bombed to hell and back

Respond to this comment

Moko is gonna tell you...

Posted January 10, 2010
Yeah, America wouldn't have been comfortable with Hawaii taken. A priority - even for just pride - would necessitate retaking it, and that would've been even MORE of a deciding factor on the future of the war.

Even if Japan won the second round I can bet my bottom dollar - which I have right here - that they would've been damaged to a point of no return. Even if the USN was they have opportunity for reconstruction.

Respond to this comment

Quokka mutters...

Posted January 10, 2010
Hum, well, my two cents worth, according to the guys I've spoken to from the Australian Parachute battalion - who never left the country thanks to Macarthur's lack of interest in them - the Sandakan death marches would never have happened, because there was a plan to use the aussie paratroopers to rescue them.

Apparently Curtin didn't have the spine to stand up to Macarthur and so the battalion was transferred from Scheyville (NSW) to Mareeba, where they pretty much sat on their arses for two years, getting extremely pissed off while they waited for a mission.

Book about this by Lynette Silver if anyone is interested.

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK asserts...

Posted January 10, 2010
Quokka..again, that also reinforces my view and a lot of other..MacArthur was a fuckwit who should not have been put in command of even a boy scout outfit

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK asserts...

Posted January 10, 2010
Now for the balance of the planet.

Well, perhaps with trade being stifled and the destruction of the US fleet ( PACFLT), the US would certainly ramp up militarily in the near term. Initial IJN conquests would be swift, although it would be in the 10-12 month category to finally take Borneo.

Perhaps the initial destruction would see the early return of Australian troops deployed to the middle east and maybe even the extension of the Lend lease arrangement to Australia. The Australian troops would be committed perhaps to Borneo or more likely Indonesia halting the Japanese offensive somewhere on those Islands.

I also wonder if perhaps Russia might make a move on the US in terms of Alaska. Perhaps towards the end if they were blind sided by a cease fire between the US, Japan ‘Australia and Britain. This would cause issues for Russia as it would rapidly free up IJN units , so if ideas were around to launch an offensive against the Kuril islands, brought forward from its original time frame and tensions were high in Europe…might they GO EAST .

Here is a curly element. If Russia had in an Alt time line like JB did in AoT arranged a cease fire with Germany. Whilst building up its offensive units it became aware of a plan to kill Hitler and the generals were looking to side with Russia, however, this is a double cross. Behind the scenes, Russia ia aware of the Riches that lay to their east, also bristling still at having let Alaska go in the first place, plans are made to invade Alaska. This would coincide with Germany fully declaring alliance with Russia, hence no need for Vast troops numbers, post Hitler’s demise of course.

What actually happens , is that Hitler is killed and the General Staff immediately announce their cessation of hostilities with the Allies and shift their troops to their EASTERN border. Allied units rapidly transit through Germany to reinforce these units as well. This is all pre D-day, although the build up was taking place. Stalin enraged of course, lashed out completely, launching an Invasion of Alaska and driving also into the Middle East. A general push also towards Japan…maybe, I don’t think so in the near term. Especially is hostilities have ceased with the US, the IJN would be too strong and severely kick any Russian surface units arses.

I aint fkn Finished yet either

Respond to this comment

Bangar swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 10, 2010
H, factor in Japanese concerns about Russia as well, a contributing factor to their unconditional surrender.

PS bloody Macarthur should have stayed in the dugout.

Respond to this comment

lostatlunch ducks in to say...

Posted January 10, 2010
now that is better back on topic...

Maybe the japanese (if they really wanted to expand) could have should have gone north, via siberia (the russians already had their hands full), to Alaska instead of pushing through the Phillipines and Pearl.. do not wake the sleeping giant until they are on the doorstep. The Alaskan oilfields would have taken away the major American advantage, the pacific ocean.. making the home islands more defensible and accelerating an American war effort without the benefit of being almost impervious to attack.. Zero's & Jenny's based out of a Canadian city.

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK asserts...

Posted January 10, 2010
Bangar, yeah thats an interesting dynamic, the flip side would be an alliance between Japan and Russia. Imagine japan securing the russian Flank against the US, Russia hits Alaska and in return they give the japanese a free reign across China, maybe threaten with some units or posture it, so as it appears that Russia will invade China. Better still, if Russia came south striking for the M East, Japan runs down the Asian West flank still and the Allies problem have just Doubled. I couldn't see we would have the combat power if we were still entangled in Europe against germany. However, if German was secured with a Coupe, then the Russian west flank is exposed, more so, if they are in Alaska. that really starts to get interesting.

Respond to this comment

NBlob puts forth...

Posted January 10, 2010
What would an optimised sphere of Japanese influence be?

Is there a way that Japan could continue to round up little countries none cared about and not touch the colonial properties of the allies; the Phillipines, Sri Lanka & india. Resulting in much rumbling from the allies, but no serious intervention.

The US was resistant to calls to join in the European theatre, what chance they'd muck in over England's colonial holdings.

If Japan has to secure the Straits of Mallacca it means taking Singapore & I think their rubber largely came from Malaya thats going to piss the UK off. With Hitler rampaging across the continent the defence of the far colonies is a second order issue for England. Resources were always going to be held back to defend the homeland.

Japan takes & consolidates it's hold over the new territories surrounding the Phillipines then acts when good 'n ready ?

Respond to this comment

Scott is gonna tell you...

Posted January 11, 2010
If we want to throw a cat amongst the pigeons, Hitler is incopasitated and as a result the Germans do not declare war on America.

Congress weren't going to do it but with the one testicled wonder declaring war on America it got the vote across the line.

Without American trucks and radios flooding in to the eastern front maybe the soviets advance would have been slowed.

It is unlikely that without US air power and masses of forces an invasion of the mainland would have been launched.

Respond to this comment

Matthew K mumbles...

Posted January 11, 2010
To think I mocked Jane when she suggested this topic. Well, sorry Jane I was wrong, this is a smart question and a great thread.

There. I said it. In public.

Not much left to say here, everyone here including Murph, Havock, JB and yes Jane have it sewed up with loads of spot on posts.

H's disdain for MacArthur is an eyeopener and now he mentions it the man was a dick. (He was also right cunt to peaceful demonstrators in the depression I understand.)

But to go back to points already made. Would not the lack of a Pearl Harbour day of infamy have made the US public less committed and deprived the US war effort of a clear raison d'etre?

Would Hitler have still pitched in? (My feeling is yes because the man was a clown).

Respond to this comment

NBlob puts forth...

Posted January 11, 2010
I'm finding it difficult to seperate the researched fiction of AOT & fact. EG, as a character in AOT the wise admiral worked well, in reality was he as blind as Mac, as balls-out full on as Rommel, or dithery like Monty?

Was there really a clique in the Japanese command structure that Knew that the US was undefeatable?

Was there faction who lobbied for limited action. Or were they SO gung ho that they were blind to consequence?

My mind is drawing paralells with the US senate voting on the Patriot Act - when 1 or 2 notables abstained, everyone else couldn't vote fast or loud enough.

Respond to this comment

El Coqui asserts...

Posted January 11, 2010
John et al:

You are assuming that Americans are going to lay down and take it. However, anyone that had read American history understand that it would had been impossible for Japan to get a negotiated peace out of us after occupying our territory and killing our people.

We also rally around our leaders, so FDR is safe.

Russia invading Alaska? Presumably if the Red Army could get itself to mount any large strategic operations after being gutted by Stalin's purges. They would find themselves in the American public opinion in the same position as the Japanese after Pearl. A backstabbing, untrustworthy enemy against whom, all rules of civilized warfare no longer applied.

We can drive to Alaska, the same thing can not be said about Russia. However, I expect that there will be a dearth of Russian prisoners to exchange.

Respond to this comment

Bangar has opinions thus...

Posted January 11, 2010
NBob, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK reckons...

Posted January 11, 2010
El Coq, no, not saying they will sit down and take it. more like until Pearl or there abouts, they US has been historically slow to anger if you will. WW1 is possibly a good case. Its this dynamic that lead the US to abstain from conflict in WW2 until they themselves were attacked. Hell maybe it was a carryover from WW1, I'm not sure. But without a doubt in my view and I suspect a lot of others in a Historical context, slow to anger, long to fight.

Typically most military strategists will utilise the phrase " WILL TO FIGHT". Pissed off, or angry or whatever other term you wish to coin, its the DRIVER. If the driver is sufficient, then motivationally with the troops you will have little concern as to why they are fighting and thus you need not motivate them.

now days, that can be all parcelled up into lying to the troops and public in general, justification for placing them in " Harms way".

Pearl harbour did this, the US had little choice in the matter.

What may have been done, and hence we are speculating here in this thread, is that the possibility of the US, making further pre-emptive moves, may have brought forward a situation where the driver, whilst still be a catastrophic loss to the US, was an event of such magnitude that the sitting government and President had no issues in declaring war. That’s because public opinion was with them.

If you look at the overall philosophy behind democratic gummits, they are elected by the people to serve them and safe guard their interests. If the people support the action, it really ties the Presidents hands in this case. Had FDR not declared war on Japan, its more likely they would have lynched him in the street.

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK puts forth...

Posted January 11, 2010
NBOB, YES there was. its also well documented that Yamamoto had misgivings about a war with the US. However, these were definitely in the minority as we know. Its also a cultural issue, in that the ethos of the Japanese society and in particular their Military at the time, viewed most other races with a significant amount of distain and further, believed they failed the warrior ethos test.

that played itself out in the POW's and how the Japanese gave no quarter in combat.

Respond to this comment

damian has opinions thus...

Posted January 11, 2010
Regarding Alaska, big amphibious invasions were a new, tentative thing that worked in favorable weather by sheer force of numbers only, and barely then. I can't see the Russians trying that in the Arctic in the 40s.

Matt K - a position varying from skepticism all the way to outright contempt and hatred of Macarthur is pretty much normal in Oz. Factors leading to this include, but are not limited to the attitude he took to the Australian troops under his command in the early part of the war.

Scott - the greatest pivotal issue on the eastern front was the Soviet Union's capacity to move its industrial base east, beyond Germany's reach, even as its heartland was overrun. Some argue the various ways the Germans might have moved faster could have led to a victory in the east, but most of these only work with hindsight and assuming perfect knowledge of events, a luxury not available to the German commanders.

Hitler lost a million men at Stalingrad, where Paulus wanted to break out. But if Paulus had his way, would that have affected the outcome? Soviet losses at Stalingrad were also pretty heavy.

Respond to this comment

robW asserts...

Posted January 11, 2010
Darkman and Others:

Alaska oil didn't come about until the 1960s, and it was offshore. Even in 1960 they were pressing the limits of offshore technology to get to that oil.

In the 1930s and 1940s the only significant oilfields in the Pacific basin were (a) in the Los Angeles basin (Signal Hill, north to Ventura County, and the Taft field/Bakersfield); (b) Royal-Dutch Shell oilfields in Sumatra, South Sumatra, Central and Eastern Java and East Kalimantan; and (c) Burma Oil Company and Standard Oil (ESSO) oilfields in (then) Burma.

The only other "big" source of oil--giant oilfields--for the Japanese was through Iran/Persia, then controlled by the British (British Petroleum) and oil from Baku, controlled by the Russians. Both of these sources were not practical because of the distance. Also, the Shell Oil pipelines through Iraq ran from east to west to the Mediterranean, not to the Persian Gulf. Persian oilfields were, at this time, poorly developed and the giant oilfields had not yet been brought onstream. Oil from the Los Angeles basin was also impractical because of the distance and logistics and hostile natives.

That left only two sources of oil in the quantities Japan needed: Sumatra/Java/Kalimantan (Royal/Dutch Shell) and Burma (Burma Oil Company and Standard Oil).

Samuel Marcus, founder of Shell Oil, did his job well in getting the British to switch their fleet from coal to oil; John D. Rockefeller did the same in the US, with help from Samuel Marcus (Shell had significant oil interests in Texas).

By taking the Burma and Sumatra oil fields, the Japanese would not only guarantee their own supply (currently being denied by FDR), but put a crimp in the US and British supplies.

If it weren't for the Kaiser Shipyards in Oakland pumping out oilers and supply vessels, the plentitude of wonderful Signal Hill oil and nearby refineries in Long Beach, and the ability of the oilers to fuel up in the newly dredged Long Beach harbor system, the US would have been in a world of hurt. But, as it stood, they did have the tankers in short order, and there was plenty of fuel for the fleet.

Respond to this comment

Matthew K puts forth...

Posted January 11, 2010
Without Pearl isolationist sentiment in the US might have at least limited the foreign entanglement. Why should they get involved in another war of empires and foreign demagogues? Mind you, the stupidly counterproductive viciousness with which the Japanese carried on would have ensured some sort of show down. In that they were a natural ally of the Nazis.

I remember hearing a comedy skit on the radio about Yamamoto's "sleeping giant" comment.

Imperial Japanese high command.

Officer: Tomorrow we attack America!

Yamamoto: ... You mean South America?

O: North America!

Y: Canada?

O: United States of America!

Y: As in the most powerful country in the world?

O: Yes!

Y: Oh.

Respond to this comment

Lobes ducks in to say...

Posted January 11, 2010
Yamamoto was well aware that Japan would never win a long war against the USA. His objections were overruled by hawks in the Diet.

Fun fact: Yamamoto graduated from Harvard, class of 1920.

Respond to this comment

robW reckons...

Posted January 11, 2010
To continue along the lines I mention above, when the US, Britain, and Netherlands East Indies (controlled by British interests--Royal/Dutch Shell Oil) initiated the oil (and steel) embargo against Japan in August 1941, Japan had no choice: Regime change and suspension of its fleet's activities or war. It's a simple calculus of (a) fuel supplies on hand in Japanese ports; (b) daily fuel consumption of the Japanese Fleet; (c) fuel requirements for the army in China; and (c) industrial fuel requirements. Plot consumption against supply and there emerges an asymptotic curve of diminishing--and disastrous--consumption that ends at zero. Japanese industrial civilization would grind to an absolute halt sometime in mid-1942.

Calculate the time it took Japan to 1. Perform Pearl Harbor; 2. Take Sumatra; 3. Take Burma and you will find a buffer of a few months of give or take viz. fuel supplies in Japan and Chinese ports versus the fuel consumption by the fleet, army, and military-industrial complex. The Japanese were performing that close to the edge. They did wait until they literally had no more options.

The US and Britain knew exactly what they were doing--picking a fight--with the fuel oil (and steel) embargo. After all, it was General Grant in the US Civil War who pioneered the concept of resource depreciation as a battle tactic. He knew that even though the North would sustain losses of 2 or 3 to 1 for every Southern soldier killed, he had the manpower to exhaust the South. The same principle applies for all resources.

What I am saying is that Japan had no choice but to attack when it did, and it requires no great leap of imagination to understand why Japan chose Pearl Harbor--because that was where the defensive fleet was located.

The clique in control in Japan had no choice: either war or regime change. They weren't about to countenance the latter, so it was the former, everything else be damned.

Respond to this comment

Guru Bob swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 11, 2010
Man I liove this stuff and am pissed off I onlyu just checked this out.

Today we really have no idea about the depth of isolationist feeling in the USA pre-Pearl Harbour - I can see a real scenario where FDR jumps the gun following a skimish in the islands and tries to get involved early and ends up turfed out on his arse. Without the catlyst of Pearl Harbour to drive America outrage the public support for a broad conflict would be extremely limited. Churchill realised this which is why he probably held back British code-breaker's intelligence about a surprise attack on the American fleet. He knew that a substantial event like that would push the Americans into the conflict and motivate them to win.

However without that motivation (nothing drives a country like the need for revenge)and without someone like FDR at the helm they could have looked for a negotiated settlement after a major setback. Think of losing a US Navy taskforce in a 'head-to-head' engagement with the Japanese Navy perhaps? Without the anger/motivator of the 'sneak attack' on Pearl, the public support for conflict could wilt to antipathy in the face of real losses?

Who were FDR's internal opponents at the time? Did any of them really stand out? If he got turfed out what were the alternatives? Have any of you read Phillip Roth's book on a Nazi affiliated America under President Charles Lindbergh?

There would also the very real possibility of America not entering into the conflict with Germany and leaving Europe to swing in the Nazi wind.

I agree with JB that Pearl Harbour is a fulcrum point where a lot of possibilities converge.

Respond to this comment

NBlob asserts...

Posted January 11, 2010
Excellant robw, Double plus star & an elephant stamp.

I hadn't considered Japanese expansion as a necessity.

Were the trade sanctions / embargo a reaction to Japanese actions in China? I always had the impression that no-one gave much of a crap even after Nanking.

I met an old bloke in the UK when I was there in '91 who had been in China when the Japanese invaded, he was interred in a POW camp just like the Empire of the Sun (?) movie. He spoke about the absolute conviction of the Brit ExPats that the Japanese would never harm an Englishman for fear of the mighty Brittish empire. Scored very high on the wrong-o-meter.

Top old bloke, sad that he's gone.

Respond to this comment

NBlob mutters...

Posted January 11, 2010
GBob, "British code-breaker’s intelligence about a surprise attack on the American fleet."

Fact?

In Our Time Line?

Holy hell, If the great unwashed had known that the Americans may well have come in on Hitlers team.

Respond to this comment

Sweet_Jane_Says swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 11, 2010
Imagine FDR isn't president. FDR admired and wanted to be like his cousin, Teddy. Of course, Teddy received the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering peace between Japan and Russia, but he loved charging up hills. Teddy didn't shy from peace, and he didn't shy from war. He also had an infinite passion for America's great lands and interesting people. What would have changed if FDR wouldn't have had Teddy has a role model?

J.

Respond to this comment

Sweet_Jane_Says puts forth...

Posted January 11, 2010
The real Jim, J. G. Ballard, was a British prisoner in a Japanese camp as a child.

J.

Respond to this comment

Sweet_Jane_Says ducks in to say...

Posted January 11, 2010
FDR was finding a "big stick" to carry even as he spoke "softly." On September 16, 1939, FDR enacted the Selective Training and Service Act, allowing peacetime drafts for compulsory military service. Men between the ages of 21 and 35 were required to register. Training of 1,200,000 troops and 800,000 reserves began within one year of September 16, 1939. The Office of Production Management was set up by President Roosevelt to speed transport of supplies to non-Axis powers. The president also authorized the establishment of US navies in the Atlantic and the Pacific. At a cost of $4 billion two hundred warships were built.

J.

Respond to this comment

Guru Bob swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 11, 2010
Nowehere - it (prior knowledge of the attack) is something that has been discussed and debated ad nauseum (see this wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate

I am pretty sure there was also a Russian agent who had all the details and passed them back to Stalin's NKVD - but can't recall whether it was stopped from being sent to the yanks or it was and they just didn't believe the source (those damn commies!).

Needless to say that it could be a thread all of its own.

SJS - I think that if FDR hadn't been President it would have been much easier for the Axis - he had steel in him. Pretty funny that America's greatest wartime leader was someone who would now be considered a rabid socialist in the US political arena. But then again things are different over there from the rest of the world.

Imagine if the USA had a Chamberlain type leader?

Respond to this comment

Guru Bob mutters...

Posted January 11, 2010
By the way the scenario that goes through my head is that the US decales war after a skirmish somewhere (eg Samoa) and prepares a task force to 'go and teach the japs a lesson' that then steams off into the sunset and gets totally creamed by Japanese carrier strikes (shades of Battle of Tsushima http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima

This could be because of the US Navy's reliance upon old-style dreadnoughts and battlewagons but removes the 'sneaky attack' from the national consciousness.

The American political process turns against the warmonger FDR and a new leader emerges who then aims for 'Peace in our time in the Pacific' giving the Japanese huge concessions (probably including the Phillipines) and deferring the war until a later date.

The later conflict is fought along the lines of the actual conflict but with a revitalised modernised US Navy fighting with mainly carrier based forces.

Respond to this comment

Scott reckons...

Posted January 11, 2010
Damian, the germans were in deep shit from the get go.

Having said that however even having moved factories eastwards the Russians were in almost as bad shape.

The Russians didn't have communications equipment that was up to modern warfare most of what they had came from the Us. They had thousands of workers who's job it was to remove any US logos and paintwork so as to hide what came from America. Without com links tactical control is difficult to impossible. The purges of the 30s didn't help. Wicky the winter war to see just how crap the Russian military was.

The soviets lost upwards of 14 million, there comes a point where even Russian manpower gets bled white.

If field marshals such as Manstein and Guderian had been allowed to practice the elastic defence wich they advocated the german army would not have been wiped out in detail.

Germany was going to lose but the Russians may have been so weakened by the eastern front that occupation of eastern European countries may have been averted.

Respond to this comment

Guru Bob is gonna tell you...

Posted January 11, 2010
Scott - if it was reduced to Russians vs Germans going head to head the Germans would still have lost eventually - Hitler coiuldn't resist meddling in strategic decisions.

The Russians also just had more manpower and resources in the long term. After Stalingrad it just became a matter of time. That victory also gave Zhukov more control over the military decision making process - have you read Beevor's book? It is very detailed and well researched.

Respond to this comment

aaron reckons...

Posted January 11, 2010
i think the interesting part would actually be; what would happen to the european theatre?

am a bit hazy on this topic but apparently there was a strong faction for a finish Japan first policy (in our time line). If hostilities broke out between japan and USA earlier, perhaps this faction would have won - which could have led to much less help from the USA to Britain and Russia.

Even if Hitler still honoured his treaty and declared war on USA, the lack of pressure from a Japan first policy would have surely have made a difference.

Respond to this comment

Bangar is gonna tell you...

Posted January 11, 2010
Aaron the major Allied powers had a Europe first policy, that ended up with more provisions for Pacific theatre from the US than originally planned

Respond to this comment

Guru Bob swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 11, 2010
Wasn't the Europe first policy decided at one of the big get-togethers at Yalta or somewhere?

I think that was the real possibility of two separate conflicts - one between the USA and Japan in the Pacific and the other was the 'European entanglement' that American interests were keen to stay out of.

Respond to this comment

Bangar swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 11, 2010
GB, it was one of the get togethers (forgive me for not looking it up). You've pointed out what I said up thread, Germany and Italy declaring war (with no obligation to) on the US and that brought them into both theatres, whereas they may have concentrated on Japan first which may have resulted in a slightly shorter Pacific conflict, the Russians running over more of Europe and the war not ending at the defeat of the Axis powers.

Respond to this comment

Scott ducks in to say...

Posted January 11, 2010
Guru Bob, your right but my point was if Hitler was contained and the general staff was allowed to run the war, never going to happen with a maniac like Hitler. Funny thing was that Stalin eventually learnt his lesson, war is too important a process to be left to amiture politicians.

I know laugh your arses off! But the poloticians should define the objectives and let proffessionals get the job done.

Gulf war round one is an example Storman Norman ran what appeared to be a textbook campaign, Bush senior appeared to keep interference to the minimum.

No Bob I haven't red the book you refer to what is it's title. Always happy to expand my knowledge base.

Btw does anyone have a resource wich shows levels of production/usage for the period, new this bloke back in my uni days who could quote tunnes produced destroyed and shipped, scary bastard.

Respond to this comment

savo swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 11, 2010
Oh, 'softly' sorry Jane, I said 'quietly' mybad

Respond to this comment

Bangar would have you know...

Posted January 11, 2010
Tut, tut, Savo rebuking it when you know it lives to bite the hand that feeds.

Hey Jane how about a thankyou? Or are you that poisoned by your trollish nature it's beyond you to do so for our thoughts on your question?

Respond to this comment

Matthew K has opinions thus...

Posted January 11, 2010
Ah the Battle of Tsushima, where the Russian Baltic fleet sailed clear around the world in order to be sent to the bottom in half a day. I think it was Neill Ferguson who said that they had no cannon balls on deck but one hundred Chinese prostitutes below. Classic.

Fun fact: On the way there the Russians fought a brief but victorious engagement against Japanese naval units in the North Sea off the coast of Britain. Which turned out to be British fishing boats. British civilian fishing boats.

And to think the Tsar got overthrown by the Reds! Go figure.

Respond to this comment

damian mumbles...

Posted January 11, 2010
Hitler wavered between the conviction of his own genius, and letting his commanders have their way. It was the OKW not Hitler who brought about Kursk, thus losing the war irrevocably. Certainly some of the more talented commanders may have done something different, but I think, for instance, Rommel is wildly overrated. I reckon Paulus was pretty good, for instance. I think just saying Hitler was a nutter is an oversimplification - it makes the most sense to think of him as a talented amateur who tried to micromanage.

When most people talk about the outcome being inevitable, it's in terms of industrial capacity. But this assumes a war of attrition, and that can be avoided with rapid concentration of force achieving a decisive blow - something very much on people's minds at the time with a sort of race between Germany and France and Britain. We've traditionally overstated the importance of material from the USA in keeping the Soviets on the job, but consider instead just how many T34s and Il-2s they were able to make, and how an earlier German offensive may have put the devil into that industrial capacity.

Likewise Yamamoto knew he couldn't win a war of attrition, and planned around achieving the early decisive blow. Though with no plans or capacity to invade North America, one wonders what sort of end they may have imagined.

Respond to this comment

Matthew K mumbles...

Posted January 11, 2010
Very true Damian, they might have been able to beat the US back to it's own mainland shores but keeping it there for long would have been... quite difficult.

Basically the Japanese bid for empire, like the Nazi German one, was fundamentally ill conceived from the beginning. They thought it was all about savagery and ruling through fear whereas the Brits thought of it more like plucking a live goose: getting the most feathers with the least hissing. And you've got to keep the goose alive and laying, yeah yeah it's a mixed metaphor but you get what I'm saying.

Interestingly I found that many right on Germans still have that impression of the British empire today.

Respond to this comment

Rhino asserts...

Posted January 12, 2010
Hmmm ... after giving this much thought and reading all of the well researched and fascinating analysis contained in the comments I have come to my own conclusion:

We still win.

The End.

Respond to this comment

Guru Bob is gonna tell you...

Posted January 12, 2010
Steve - I was referring to his book Stalingrad but you can take your pick from any of these - he is one of the best writers in this field at the moment.

http://www.antonybeevor.com/index.htm

Respond to this comment

Bangar mutters...

Posted January 12, 2010
Rhino but how counts for style points ;)

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 12, 2010
Damian, has the Ruskies NOT been reading germanies mail, KURSK would have been won by the Germans.

Had Hitler not micromanaged..I have NO doubt, the outcome would have been different, same goes for moving the units at the Pass de calais..EARLIER!

Respond to this comment

Bangar is gonna tell you...

Posted January 13, 2010
Well Jane I can't say I'm surprised by the lack of response.

Respond to this comment

El Coqui would have you know...

Posted January 14, 2010
The US will have prevail of course but think about the corollary effects of certain action on the post war history.

Respond to this comment

damian reckons...

Posted January 16, 2010
Havock - indeed. With a different outcome on the eastern front, there would not have been a western front.

Respond to this comment

Respond to 'A Sweet Jane alt-hist challenge!'

Huzzah!

Posted January 5, 2010 by John Birmingham
At half past some time this morning I opened Google mail, attached a very large file, and sent off the second draft of After America. I immediately realized I had forgotten to include the prologue. After much cursing and a small amount of faffing around, I sent a second mail out with the offending document. The

That is not the end of the matter, of course. There are still three chapters at the end with which I am... displeased. They shall be corrected most severely in the next few days. And of course there is the line edit to get through. All of which takes place in hard copy and is thus a little slower and a little less convenient than we are used to in the digital world. On the upside it does provide a magnificent artifact of an actual A3 manuscript for me to take a slightly out of focus photograph of, for the purposes of taunting your worthless arses.

"Oh, did that line really describe a character called Havsy in a hibiscus print two piece bikini designed by Jodhi Meares? It's so hard to tell. This damned photograph seems to have been taken out of focus on purpose."

Only the Rhino knows. And Murph. And my editors Cate, Betsy and Joel.

I had kind of been hoping to catch up on some old episodes of Angel tonight, but having crawled out from beneath the crushing weight of one deadline I find myself confronted by another. 3000 words for The Monthly.

And so I strap myself into the dictating harness, take up my sword and shield and cry, "This Is Sparta!"

176 Responses to ‘Huzzah!’

NBlob ducks in to say...

Posted January 5, 2010
well done sir

photo? or is that only for the twitterati?

.

.

.

the

Respond to this comment

Abe reckons...

Posted January 5, 2010
What's the Monthly article about?

The

Respond to this comment

John Birmingham is gonna tell you...

Posted January 5, 2010
How very odd. Is this hanging definite article a new internet fad?

Abe. Submarines. How to build expensive, risky submarines.

Mmmmm... submarineylicious.

Respond to this comment

Catty ducks in to say...

Posted January 5, 2010
Expensive risky submarines? Easy. Hovercraft + Selley's polyfiller. It worked in your pool on boxing day.

The

Respond to this comment

Albion Love Den reckons...

Posted January 5, 2010
The

Respond to this comment

WarDog ducks in to say...

Posted January 5, 2010
Well done JB.

Another milestone.

Another roadblock removed.

The human tide awaiting the fruits our your hard labour salute you.

Respond to this comment

Albion Love Den swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 5, 2010
BillyBoy... what

The

Respond to this comment

John Birmingham swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 5, 2010
Lolz. Now I understand.

The the is the product a the that went feral in the dictation sofware I am still using.

The

Respond to this comment

Lobes reckons...

Posted January 5, 2010
Well done on finishing the manuscript. Maybe a teaser for the faithful?

The

Respond to this comment

Albion Love Den would have you know...

Posted January 5, 2010
Yes, right after your smug re-tweet regarding Dan Brown's foibles. Cumeuppance, Birmingham.

Respond to this comment

Albion Love Den swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 5, 2010
Shit.

The

Respond to this comment

Scott mutters...

Posted January 5, 2010
Birmo, ever been down on one?

Btw congratulations on completing.

May I humbbley suggest leather straps for the correction of the last 3 chapters.

According to mistress MM it works wonders.

the

Respond to this comment

Catty ducks in to say...

Posted January 5, 2010
A round of applause for JB!

clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap

Sorry, I mean a round of drinks, of course. He has a lot of catching up to do.

The

Respond to this comment

Quokka ducks in to say...

Posted January 5, 2010
Well done.

The maltesers are on me.

Respond to this comment

Catty mumbles...

Posted January 5, 2010
Quokka, that's because you didn't dodge the splashback from the malteser chunder bucket.

The

Respond to this comment

sparty puts forth...

Posted January 5, 2010
the the

great band

Respond to this comment

John ducks in to say...

Posted January 5, 2010
Can't wait for it to come out. Photo link?

The

Respond to this comment

Scott mutters...

Posted January 5, 2010
Catty puss love I thought we agreed not to tell Birmo about our experiment with his hovercraft-submarine.

On a more serious note maybe if this time around the fucknuckles in defence and there equaly mentally challenged political bosses allow a prototype to be built.

This would allow for new inervations to be tested out

If memory serves they built all 6 Collins at once trying to save money. All that happened was that the same defects aflicted the entire class.

Birmo the cost and risk often appears to be caused by pollies changing requirements mid project.

The Joint Strike Fighter is a case in point.

the

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK reckons...

Posted January 5, 2010
Scot, the cost of the risk is mainly the amount of risk associated with the specification of the subs capabilities. eg..its a fkn big wish list the Admirals and pollies have, usually some of which is not currently meshed together or even fkn DESIGNED. EG!..this new speced series of subs. BIGGEST fkn NON NUKE boats ever to be built they will be...FFS...R & D on a massive scale and..well. I'll save the rest for another time.

NOW..to matters at hand..HAVSY hey!........ya reckon old man...All together you three muppets or one at a time..however you, Rhino and Murph want it!

Respond to this comment

Bangar ducks in to say...

Posted January 5, 2010
My proof reading rates are very reasonable ... Congrats as well ... the important question when will the rest of us see it?

Respond to this comment

Timmo puts forth...

Posted January 5, 2010
Nice work, JB!

I bet that's a load off the shoulders...

Respond to this comment

Scott has opinions thus...

Posted January 5, 2010
Havock, my point exactly most of the tech either is on the bleeding edge of possibility or has never been meshed together.

Hence the need for a prototype, I was only 17-18 the last time and new f all about such things but even then I new they should have built a testbed before placing the sub in production.

I don't have a problem with the project I just hope they have learnt from the last go around. Like you said its a big mf of a project.

Looking forwards to Birmo's artical.

the

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 5, 2010
Timmo....sml load, for obvious reasons

OH and now that BUSINESS is out of the way, I must turn to pleasurable pursuits..QUOKKA...HAVSY will come back to fkn HAUNT YOU...OH HWO IT WILL!

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK is gonna tell you...

Posted January 5, 2010
SCOT!........DOWN on WHAT?!!!!!!!!!!!!......

Respond to this comment

EnjoyMedway swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 5, 2010
Good work, Birmo. Soon I'll read something of yours. The

Respond to this comment

Scott is gonna tell you...

Posted January 5, 2010
A sub of course Havock! What else would I have been talking about?

the

Respond to this comment

Rhino swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 6, 2010
Birmo, I will reiterate here in a public forum what I sent to you via private "circle of trust' secret email:

Do you really think that it is wise to portray Havsy in the way that you do in AA? I mean, fun's fun and all but he really is unstable and it could be dangerous for you. At least Murph and I are safe(er) being half a world away. Since I am not there to provide personal protection I would counsel you to consider editing those parts - or, at the very least, tone down some of the more explicit aspects of the trans-gender, cross-dressing homoerotica. (Personally, I'm appalled that the Caitlin stuff was edited out but the gratuitous donkey show episode made it through your Aussie editor's review). Also, there are the draconian Aussie libel laws to be considered. I know that you'll stand firm as a pillar of artistic integrity - I just felt that it was my moral and ethical obligation as your loyal beta reader and all around Havsy provoker to raise these issues.

Respond to this comment

Tarl asserts...

Posted January 6, 2010
Off-topic somewhat...

The 2010 Hugo nominations are now open, and I'm not sure whether Without Warning qualifies for them or not - it was published in the U.S. in 2009, but in Australia in 2008. I don't think you published anything else in 2009 that I can nominate.

Either way, I nominated it. I'll let the Australians on the committee decide if they have to bump it off because of publication dates.

Respond to this comment

Paul Nicholas Boylan asserts...

Posted January 6, 2010
I know the kind of writing I do isn't quite as - for lack of a better term - romantic, but I have awful deadlines for drafting and filing all kinds of stuff. Right now. I just completed and sent out for filing and service three petitions for writs of mandate and a government tort claim. In the next ten days I have six more writs, a couple of complaints for damage and two appellant's opening briefs to get filed.

I gotta get me one of them dictating harnesses.

And then a couple of cases of beer.

Respond to this comment

jennicki would have you know...

Posted January 6, 2010
Paul, don't you have a paralegal to do that stuff for you?

Respond to this comment

jennicki swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 6, 2010
...because if you are one of those attorneys who does all that work himself, I am more impressed with you and I just didn't think that was possible.

Respond to this comment

Rhino has opinions thus...

Posted January 6, 2010
Rhino politically incorrect joke FTW on Blunty today.

Respond to this comment

Rhino ducks in to say...

Posted January 6, 2010
But since it is 4:44 am in Oz I'm sure that I won't see it for several hours ... or at all if the spam trap gets it.

Respond to this comment

lostatlunch is gonna tell you...

Posted January 6, 2010
Bravo That Man... another Everest has been scaled and now K2 should be much easier.

The

Respond to this comment

Paul Nicholas Boylan mutters...

Posted January 6, 2010
Jen - First, you are far too easily impressed (for which I am grateful). Second, paralegals can do some basic things (no offense to you excellent paralegals out there). What I am writing isn't within a paralegal's perview.

Respond to this comment

Paul Nicholas Boylan ducks in to say...

Posted January 6, 2010
Rhino - Re: politically incorrect Blunty comment: I actually laughed out loud, buddy. It has been a really hard, dark day, and I am in your debt for lightening it for a moment.

Respond to this comment

Murphy asserts...

Posted January 6, 2010
The bikini left nothing to the imagination.

Congrats on "gittin' 'er done," Birmo.

Now, what about this next American tour/escape from the clutches of Havsies revenge? Any ponderings on that?

Respects,

Murph

On the Outer Marches

Respond to this comment

Quokka is gonna tell you...

Posted January 6, 2010
Havock settle down and go try on some shoes, would you?

You can't wear a bikini down Caville Avenue without them.

Its mandatory dress code this side of the border. We don't want to shock the seppos.

Respond to this comment

Dark car, dudes with ski masks... ducks in to say...

Posted January 6, 2010
The...?. THE.............?. FINISH THE FARKEN STOOOOOOR-RY!.

Respond to this comment

Therbs asserts...

Posted January 6, 2010
Congrats JB on manuscript mailing and articles both definite and indefinite. Rhino, that was a gem at Blunty.

Respond to this comment

robW puts forth...

Posted January 6, 2010
hibiscus-print, two-piece bikini?

hibiscus, print-two, piece bikini?

or hibiscus-print bikini? (assuming all bikinis, though one piece or the other is always optional, usually come in two pieces)

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK would have you know...

Posted January 6, 2010
Hibiscus..the mere fact the author knows what they ARE!...concerns me FKN GREATLY...

robW...I sure do hope you are running state of the art encryption and stealthing software buddy!...

QUOKKA..I just bought BOOTS!..Big, god dam Lace up, steel toed CATIPILLAR, dont fk with me BOOTS. The tread pattern I figure should ensure grip on juglar areas..even when they might be rather slick and slippery.....

As much as I really really do hahte to be even in minor proximity to the same sorta camp and that horned bloody git, I find no cause to WORK OUT. Genetic selection has ensure that those above , thats above god, which means I am the consultant he comes too, Kinda like a really really cool and spanky looking TITAN I reckon, which means. I don’t do that girly stuff..pump weights, work out in the dark..these attributes and work practices are for the meek. They shall not inherit the earth.

I SHALL!

Respond to this comment

Quokka is gonna tell you...

Posted January 6, 2010
Robw are you trying to say 'Too Much Information'?

Respond to this comment

NBlob reckons...

Posted January 6, 2010
Wern't CAT boots, like an NFL tie? advertising for "Fun times nothing serious" in the tastefully dressed section of Oxford St. ?

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK mumbles...

Posted January 6, 2010