[Krononauts] messy unedited alt. timeline discussions some good stuff within

[Carl Brown]

Ok so here is the unedited messy sum of two separate email
conversations.
Richard is a WWII history buff so I quized him too. his extra thoughts
are at the end.

? Hi all,
> I think I need to scrap the comment about the company being about 5x
> bigger. Also don't forget to send in anything useful or ideas for the
> new timeline:
> Fearing an Allied super-weapon after 500 top scientists witnessed a
7.1
> kiloton explosion inexplicably in the middle of a top secret Nazi base
> (1942) the Nazi generals assasinate Hitler and surrender to preserve
the
> Fatherland (1943). An early end to WWII in Europe and North Africa.
The
> trick is the allies do not yet have such a weapon, it was sent by time
> travellers.
>

In chronological order. In early 1943 the Soviets broke the siege of
Leningrad, won the battle of Stalingrad and captured the German 6th
Army.
At the same time the Poles began the Warsaw ghetto uprising.

Also early in the year The White Rose non-violent/propaganda resistance
group are captured in Germany and executed. It would make an interesting
plot line to assume that they were incredibly successful instead. If you
want to get you could somehow mix that in with Abbie Hoffman's synthesis
of LSD at roughly the same time and end up with flower power defeating
the
Nazis.... OK, maybe not :)

Shortly after this Afrika Korp surrended to the allies.

So it would be in those circumstances that you could end up with a
conservative, but not belligerent, fascist alliance in Germany, Vichy
and
Gaullist France, Salazar's Portugal, Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy
etc. with Eastern Europe having strongly independent communist regimes
in
Poland, Czechoslavakia, Greece, etc probably as allies of Yugoslavia's
Tito.

So the Cold War doesn't quite happen as expected. The Soviet Union
remains
constrained by a group of very independent allies to their west, and
beyond that conservative regimes, which would last at least until the
1970s.

? On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 14:34 -0700, Carl Brown wrote:
> >
> >So the Cold War doesn't quite happen as expected. The Soviet Union
> remains
> >constrained by a group of very independent allies to their west, and
> >beyond that conservative regimes, which would last at least until the
> >1970s.
> 
> Without a strong Soviet does ascendency of the USA result? 

Not really. Just the Soviets don't really have Eastern Europe, the USA
doesn't really have Western Europe; and although there would be no
massive end-of-war destruction, likewise there would be no COMECON or
Marshall Plan.

> Any thoughts on asia anyone?

Japan would surrender sooner as the US, UK, and ANZ would not have to
fight to two fronts..

> what does all this mean to the characters? Think about where you and
> your ancestors are from. 

Note that the post-colonial independence movements would still happen
*eventually*; they might take longer because the European powers aren't
as trashed. Instead of 1950s and 60s more like 70s and 80s.

> What about culture and technology?

Interestingly I think Eastern Europe would more influential than Western
Europe in this regard because of their stronger independence and mutual
aid among each other.

> How about Wehrner and his 500 odd followers seeking to escape cash
> strapped Germany and pursue the moon still defect to the USA?

Depends very much on Wehrner's personal politics were like....

Also one other thing I completely neglected to mention which could be
hugely influential - Franklin D. Roosevelt.

FDR always said that once he'd gotten rid of Hitler and Mussolini, he'd
deal with that "other fascist", being Franco (and presumably Salazar in
Portgual). 

Either Franco and Salazar would reform (as suggested) or there very well
may be a war between various western European countries and the United
States!


_______________________________________________
Krononauts mailing list
Krononauts at mimesisrpg.com
http://mimesisrpg.com/mailman/listinfo/krononauts_mimesisrpg.com
.
? Hi Karl and Liz,
? 
? I have got your message(s) and have put on my thinking cap. Boy, you
do come up with some doozies to exercise the grey matter! Some more
context would be helpful.
? 
? I am currently "in training" (ie plenty of toilet stops) for a
colonoscopy tomorrow, so I have some other things on my mind (or bottom)
at the moment.
? 
? Off the cuff, I would say that there is very little that the Nazi
hierarchy or their armed forces could do. The invasion of Russia was not
going well (eg unexpected Russian resistance at Stalingrad and Leningrad
and the impending loss of Von Paulus's 6th Army). North Africa was in a
similar condition (Rommel was about to be chucked out of Africa after El
Alamein and the Allies were about to invade North Africa). UK Bomber
Command and the USAAF 8th Air Force were working up to the bomber
offensive commencing in early 1943. The Japanese were no help after the
defeats in PNG and the Solomons and the Battles of the Coral Sea and
Midway. And the Italians were useless.
? 
? Although the Nazi's were working on "super weapons" they had not
progressed. Their nuclear ambitions were stalled by the escape or the
unwise elimination of a lot of their best scientists and the destruction
of the heavy water plant at Telermark in occupied Norway. Their other
rocket/missile research was limited and largely confined to the now
destroyed Peenemunde, and had produced no real powerful guided weapons.
? 
? Therefore, as a first guess I would say that there would be only a
limited effect on the war. The allies would still need to invade both
from the east and the west. The effect on German morale would be more
difficult to guess but I would say that there could be some sort of coup
by the Generals and /or a civil uprising (a la 1918) that shortens the
war maybe to late 1944.
? 
? Your thoughts are about right - but the timing is the thing. I still
think they would have battled through till about 1943-44 especially
after the successes of D-Day and the effect of the bomber offensive. To
my knowledge the Nazi's had little or no knowledge of any Allied super
weapon (although post war intelligence revealed that the Russians knew
at the Potsdam Conference and feigned ignorance at Truman's "shock"
announcement).
? 
? The interesting part of your question is the future effect of the
mystery explosion. The scientists escaped so that was a plus. The
hardware did not so that would be a setback (you would be aware that the
V2 was the basis fore the development of the US Viking rocket that led
directly to the successful NASA and ICBM vehicles like Atlas and
Saturn). I'm not sure about the effect on the development of guidance
systems.
? 
? In conclusion, in the short to medium term little would have changed
except timing. I think that the US and Russia would still have plugged
on to the Cold War - each suspecting the other as being the perpetrator
of the mysterious explosion, and therefore embarking on the Arms Race.
Science would have progressed - I cannot see the developments of the
space race, pharmaceuticals, electronics, aviation, etc etc being any
different. International relations may have been different - the east
always having the suspicion that the west had a super weapon up its
sleeve and vice versa. Maybe this would have be a catalyst for word
peace.
? 
? This is a bit garbled but is a first attempt. If I have any other
bright thoughts I will let you know. I would be interested in seeing the
emails from the group.
? 
? Regards
? 
? Richard 
? 
? 
? 
? 
? 
? From: Karl David Brown [mailto:brownk at unimelb.edu.au] 
Sent: Saturday, 24 July 2010 1:24 PM
To: Elizabeth Anne Bowman
Cc: rbowman at grapevine.net.au
Subject: RE: Your expertise could be helpful FW: Dad's Email
? 
? Anyway the time travel is not important here. What is important is
that the Nazi's have concrete evidence of what they think is an
unstoppable allied super-weapon from mid-1942 on. what do they do? how
is the world changed?

not her fault? hmmm, two paleontologists called Dr Neill Edwards (Aka
Liz) knew the explosion was going to happen, had access to a time
machine and still failed to stop the bad guy's (my) evil plan twice.
Gross incompetence I'd say.
;)



-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Anne Bowman [mailto:eabowman at unimelb.edu.au]
Sent: Fri 23/07/2010 18:31
To: Karl David Brown
Cc: rbowman at grapevine.net.au; Liz Bowman
Subject: Re: Your expertise could be helpful FW: Dad's Email

This is what I do on my weekends, try to prevent Werner von Braun from
getting vaporised at inopportune historical moments. I hasten to add
that
(this time) the enormous explosion wasn't my character's fault....

Let us know, Dad, if you need more context. Karl's trying to build an
alternate timeline, when the Nazi scientists get the crap scared out of
them in 1942.

Liz

> Hi R&R
> I wondered if Richard would give me a hand here. Recently some idiot
time
> traveller set off a 7.1 kiloton fuel-air explosive in mid-1942. The
bomb
> appeared out of nowhere then exploded 3 seconds later. This thing
looks
> like a nuke but leaves no radiation.The explosive destroyed the
Peenemunde
> base where they developed the V2. Most of the scientists escaped and
> witnessed the event from a distance.
> What would be the likely repercussions in the years and decades that
> followed? (I have to build a rough timeline to 2095AD)
> My first take on this event is that the Nazi's feared an allied super
> weapon. The Generals could then assassinate Hitler and surrender to
save
the
> Fatherland. Is this about right?
> Any thoughts?
> Would you like to be included in the emails within our group on this
> particular subject?
>
> p.s. Hi Rose
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elizabeth Anne Bowman [mailto:eabowman at unimelb.edu.au]
> Sent: Fri 23/07/2010 12:07
> To: Karl David Brown
> Subject: Dad's Email
>
> rbowman at grapevine.net.au
>
> Technically, that is Mum and Dad's email. I'm not sure who usually
gets
> to it first.
> CC me into the conversation too.
>
? Hi to you both,
? 
? In answer (briefly) to your questions.
? 
? Firstly, I think by 1943 and 1944 most of the physical "damage" to
England had already been done. The blitz was finished (except for the
odd nuisance bomber), the far east had been well and truly lost years
before (eg Singapore, Hong Kong, Mandalay and the Sumatran oil fields),
major naval losses had already occurred (eg HMS's Hood, Prince of Wales,
Repulse, Ark Royal, Royal Oak etc etc). However there were still losses
to be borne (eg Bomber Command personnel, Civilian damage from V1's and
later V2's, continuing Atlantic convoy sinkings). So in essence I don't
think England would have been "a lot" less damaged.
? 
? Secondly, England would have financially benefited from an earlier end
to the war. But it would be difficult to guesstimate by how much. In
1943-44 the economy was in bad shape, rationing took years to end and it
took a number of years to repair civilian/industrial damage and swing
the economy over to a peace time footing. Most of the savings would have
been a reduction in "capital costs" (probably limited need to repair the
VI and 2 damage, reduction or cancellation of the late war time naval
building program (eg HMS's Vanguard, Implacable, Indefatigable and the
"Tiger" class cruisers). However, there would have been a continuing
need to finance the reconstruction program, the occupation forces,
veterans/widows/orphans support funds and to repay the USA for loans
incurred during the earlier stages of the war and under the Lend/Lease
program.
? 
? In the latter case it is not very well known that the yanks were very
tough and insisted on full payment of principle and interest. If I
remember correctly the UK only settled its WWII sovereign debt to the US
in the last five or so years. To my knowledge the US Marshall Plan was
of no use to the UK as it was only tailored to rebuild war ravaged
Europe.
? 
? I like the potential unscrambling tactic, but I would not be confident
of its long term success. It smacks somewhat of a chicken as well as an
egg. Good luck!
? 
? Regards
? 
? Richard 
? Hi,
? 
? I forgot to say, don't forget the war in the Far East. The UK had made
a definite political decision that it was not going to surrender its pre
war importance in that region. Hence the creation of the "British
Pacific Fleet" (which the US hated as it interfered with its strategy to
increase its influence in the Far East), and the RAF's "Tiger Force"
designed to join the USAAF in the bombing of Japan (a strategy which in
end did not occur). 
? 
? In 1943-44 the Japanese were still fighting and showed no signs of
surrender. The UK therefore, mostly for political reasons, would have
continued to fight on in Burma, reinforcing its forces there and
possibly in the Pacific to join the US (and of course Australia) in the
island hopping military campaign to ultimately invade Japan.
? 
? This redirection to the Pacific of course would have had financial
repercussions to the British, and maybe nullify any "savings" incurred
in an early end to the war in Europe.
? 
? Regards (again)
? 
? Richard 





<p><p>Care2 makes it easy for everyone to live a healthy, green lifestyle
and impact the causes you care about most. Over 12 Million members!
<a href="http://www.care2.com" target=_blank>http://www.care2.com</a><br /><br />
Feed a child by searching the web! Learn how <a href="http://www.care2.com/toolbar" target=_blank>http://www.care2.com/toolbar<a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mimesisrpg.com/pipermail/krononauts_mimesisrpg.com/attachments/20100731/53426932/attachment.htm>