underused after 1900 pods

[Zyobot]

'Libertarian Republican Party, Social-Democratic Democratic Party'.

[Zyobot]

'Adlai Stevenson Wins In 1952'.

[lordroel]

Feb 21, 2020 0:40:52 GMT Zyobot said:

'Adlai Stevenson Wins In 1952'.

Reading his Wikipdadia article, i think he could be a interesting president.

[EwellHolmes]

Feb 19, 2020 14:07:45 GMT lordroel said:

Feb 19, 2020 13:58:00 GMT stevep said:

  Well with minor political differences you might have seen France, probably supported at least politically by Britain and Belgium, possibly Poland as well, step in when Germany marched back into the Rhineland.  At the very least forcing the Nazis to step down on this would be a huge loss of face for them and if the Rhineland is left undefended Germany has very little chance of any moves on say Austria or the Czechs.  Quite possibly it might prompt a coup removing the Nazis.  Your still going to have strong revanchist feelings in Germany but that could at least push the matter back say 5-10 years minimum, by which time a hell of a lot could have changed.  Including probably a Pacific war that sees Japan defeated and a nationalist, rather than Communist China.  The west is however likely to be distinctly more conservative and racists without WWII, possibly even more so in the aftermath of a war with Japan so in many ways it could be a lot less pleasant in western Europe and the US and the colonial situation could be a lot bloodier.  Also what happens eventually with Germany and with the Soviet Union would be difficult to tell.

I always understood Germany needed the war to survive, if not it would go bankrupt, ore am i wrong.

Only if the NSDAP comes into power and begins the same extensive armament campaign as OTL, otherwise no, they didn't need a war. 

[EwellHolmes]

Feb 19, 2020 13:58:00 GMT stevep said:

Feb 19, 2020 0:41:12 GMT Zyobot said:

‘How Long Could We Have Delayed WW2?’. My impression is that even at the most generous, WW1 would've still occurred not too long after 1914 IOTL due to ultra-high tensions that were this close to finally boiling over. But what about its younger, but ultimately bigger brother that overshadowed it twenty to thirty-something years later?

  Well with minor political differences you might have seen France, probably supported at least politically by Britain and Belgium, possibly Poland as well, step in when Germany marched back into the Rhineland.  At the very least forcing the Nazis to step down on this would be a huge loss of face for them and if the Rhineland is left undefended Germany has very little chance of any moves on say Austria or the Czechs.  Quite possibly it might prompt a coup removing the Nazis.  Your still going to have strong revanchist feelings in Germany but that could at least push the matter back say 5-10 years minimum, by which time a hell of a lot could have changed.  Including probably a Pacific war that sees Japan defeated and a nationalist, rather than Communist China.  The west is however likely to be distinctly more conservative and racists without WWII, possibly even more so in the aftermath of a war with Japan so in many ways it could be a lot less pleasant in western Europe and the US and the colonial situation could be a lot bloodier.  Also what happens eventually with Germany and with the Soviet Union would be difficult to tell.

There would be no Pacific War without a European War; the decisions that led to that Japanese offensives were engendered by events in Europe, not in spite of them. In 1939-1940, the Japanese had actually declared neutrality and begin to seek a rapprochement, which was derailed by the events of the Germans sweeping into Western Europe. 

Now, as for the 1938 Crisis, it would've been far better for the Germans to start the war right then as the Anglo-French were so outmatched it would've been a relatively quick conflict. 

[stevep]

Feb 21, 2020 4:35:32 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Feb 19, 2020 13:58:00 GMT stevep said:

  Well with minor political differences you might have seen France, probably supported at least politically by Britain and Belgium, possibly Poland as well, step in when Germany marched back into the Rhineland.  At the very least forcing the Nazis to step down on this would be a huge loss of face for them and if the Rhineland is left undefended Germany has very little chance of any moves on say Austria or the Czechs.  Quite possibly it might prompt a coup removing the Nazis.  Your still going to have strong revanchist feelings in Germany but that could at least push the matter back say 5-10 years minimum, by which time a hell of a lot could have changed.  Including probably a Pacific war that sees Japan defeated and a nationalist, rather than Communist China.  The west is however likely to be distinctly more conservative and racists without WWII, possibly even more so in the aftermath of a war with Japan so in many ways it could be a lot less pleasant in western Europe and the US and the colonial situation could be a lot bloodier.  Also what happens eventually with Germany and with the Soviet Union would be difficult to tell.

There would be no Pacific War without a European War; the decisions that led to that Japanese offensives were engendered by events in Europe, not in spite of them. In 1939-1940, the Japanese had actually declared neutrality and begin to seek a rapprochement, which was derailed by the events of the Germans sweeping into Western Europe. 

Now, as for the 1938 Crisis, it would've been far better for the Germans to start the war right then as the Anglo-French were so outmatched it would've been a relatively quick conflict. 

EwellHolmes,

  Would have to disagree on both points.

a)  The war with Japan came about largely because of its invasion of China, which is still likely to come about without Hitler upsetting things in Europe.  Once that's happened and especially with the western powers having more resources to aid the Chinese the Japanese have to either admit defeat and withdraw, which would be virtually impossible with the militarists in power or ultimately attack the western powers.  Both to cut off aid to the Chinese and to try and gain the southern resources they need.  This is going to be hugely more difficult without the crisis in Europe and while they are likely to take the Philippines, most/all of FIC and some other isolated areas [Shanghai, Hong Kong, Guam, probably Wake and some parts of the DEI but that would probably be all.  Especially since with Japan in a worse position that crisis and conflict is likely to come earlier.

b)  It was only really after Munich and especially Hitler's breach of the agreement that the western powers ramped up non-Naval military spending and only in March 39 that Britain introduced conscription.  The German military put on a lot of weight in the year before the actual outbreak of war.  Even if Britain and France declare war but don't take any offensive action on the ground this means that Germany has to take Bohemia by force rather than have it fall into their hands.  They have to fight the Czech army, insteading of having it and its equipment falling into their hands.  Since its a good quality force and have powerful defences, both natural and man made that's going to be costly.  Most of those Pz 38's are going to be destroyed killing Germans and smashing the German tanks rather than being snapped up.  Similarly they are unlikely to get Czech industries in full working order.  Furthermore it could well fail to gain the Czech gold reserves and other assets to keep its economy afloat.  If France was to attack while the German army was fighting in Bohemia then the war is probably over pretty quickly as Germany has less military and established defences to oppose them and Hitler is almost certain to fall with through direct foreign intervention or by internal coup.

  Another factor here if the west goes to war over the Czechs then Poland will have to fight for the areas it gains and the Soviets, who had offered support for the Czechs could well intervene.  As such you could end up with a very loose German-Polish alliance facing up against the western powers and the Soviets.  And while the Red Army is a mess at this point its still very large and will improve over time.  Possibly equally importantly it would mean no alliance between the Nazis and Soviets so the former is going to be crippled by blockade as well.

  Steve

[EwellHolmes]

Feb 21, 2020 12:56:52 GMT stevep said:

Feb 21, 2020 4:35:32 GMT EwellHolmes said:

There would be no Pacific War without a European War; the decisions that led to that Japanese offensives were engendered by events in Europe, not in spite of them. In 1939-1940, the Japanese had actually declared neutrality and begin to seek a rapprochement, which was derailed by the events of the Germans sweeping into Western Europe. 

Now, as for the 1938 Crisis, it would've been far better for the Germans to start the war right then as the Anglo-French were so outmatched it would've been a relatively quick conflict. 

EwellHolmes ,

  Would have to disagree on both points.

a)  The war with Japan came about largely because of its invasion of China, which is still likely to come about without Hitler upsetting things in Europe.  Once that's happened and especially with the western powers having more resources to aid the Chinese the Japanese have to either admit defeat and withdraw, which would be virtually impossible with the militarists in power or ultimately attack the western powers.  Both to cut off aid to the Chinese and to try and gain the southern resources they need.  This is going to be hugely more difficult without the crisis in Europe and while they are likely to take the Philippines, most/all of FIC and some other isolated areas [Shanghai, Hong Kong, Guam, probably Wake and some parts of the DEI but that would probably be all.  Especially since with Japan in a worse position that crisis and conflict is likely to come earlier.

b)  It was only really after Munich and especially Hitler's breach of the agreement that the western powers ramped up non-Naval military spending and only in March 39 that Britain introduced conscription.  The German military put on a lot of weight in the year before the actual outbreak of war.  Even if Britain and France declare war but don't take any offensive action on the ground this means that Germany has to take Bohemia by force rather than have it fall into their hands.  They have to fight the Czech army, insteading of having it and its equipment falling into their hands.  Since its a good quality force and have powerful defences, both natural and man made that's going to be costly.  Most of those Pz 38's are going to be destroyed killing Germans and smashing the German tanks rather than being snapped up.  Similarly they are unlikely to get Czech industries in full working order.  Furthermore it could well fail to gain the Czech gold reserves and other assets to keep its economy afloat.  If France was to attack while the German army was fighting in Bohemia then the war is probably over pretty quickly as Germany has less military and established defences to oppose them and Hitler is almost certain to fall with through direct foreign intervention or by internal coup.

  Another factor here if the west goes to war over the Czechs then Poland will have to fight for the areas it gains and the Soviets, who had offered support for the Czechs could well intervene.  As such you could end up with a very loose German-Polish alliance facing up against the western powers and the Soviets.  And while the Red Army is a mess at this point its still very large and will improve over time.  Possibly equally importantly it would mean no alliance between the Nazis and Soviets so the former is going to be crippled by blockade as well.

  Steve

The Japanese did not place themselves onto the path of war solely by the China invasion and that it was not inevitable that conflict with the Western powers would come about. The sanctions regime that resulted in war only came about as Japanese expansionism into Southeast Asia as evidenced by the FIC occupation which, in turn, was only triggered by events in Western Europe; the first active war planning to attack the European possessions only occurred as a result of the rapid, unexpected collapse of the Europeans. Indeed, when the war first broke out, the newly established Abe Government declared neutrality and began making efforts to achieve friendly relations with the Europeans with the aim of cutting off aid to the KMT as they had managed to convince the British to do already.

As for the Munich Crisis, the German Army was far and away superior to the hypothetical Anglo-French-Czech forces. The border defenses they held were isolated via the Pro-German militias and were very light in character, with Post-Crisis analysis by the Germans figuring their combined arms offensive would've rapidly overwhelmed them. The Anglo-French, meanwhile, had no means of which to launch an offensive as they held no armored divisions, modern planes, had only recently started planning at the mass strategic level and, in the specific case of the British, had only two divisions which they could deploy. 

[Zyobot]

'VPOTUS Al Gore Becomes POTUS' via Bill Clinton being removed from the game, rather than Gore winning the 2000 election or something like that.

[stevep]

Feb 21, 2020 18:22:56 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Feb 21, 2020 12:56:52 GMT stevep said:

EwellHolmes ,

  Would have to disagree on both points.

a)  The war with Japan came about largely because of its invasion of China, which is still likely to come about without Hitler upsetting things in Europe.  Once that's happened and especially with the western powers having more resources to aid the Chinese the Japanese have to either admit defeat and withdraw, which would be virtually impossible with the militarists in power or ultimately attack the western powers.  Both to cut off aid to the Chinese and to try and gain the southern resources they need.  This is going to be hugely more difficult without the crisis in Europe and while they are likely to take the Philippines, most/all of FIC and some other isolated areas [Shanghai, Hong Kong, Guam, probably Wake and some parts of the DEI but that would probably be all.  Especially since with Japan in a worse position that crisis and conflict is likely to come earlier.

b)  It was only really after Munich and especially Hitler's breach of the agreement that the western powers ramped up non-Naval military spending and only in March 39 that Britain introduced conscription.  The German military put on a lot of weight in the year before the actual outbreak of war.  Even if Britain and France declare war but don't take any offensive action on the ground this means that Germany has to take Bohemia by force rather than have it fall into their hands.  They have to fight the Czech army, insteading of having it and its equipment falling into their hands.  Since its a good quality force and have powerful defences, both natural and man made that's going to be costly.  Most of those Pz 38's are going to be destroyed killing Germans and smashing the German tanks rather than being snapped up.  Similarly they are unlikely to get Czech industries in full working order.  Furthermore it could well fail to gain the Czech gold reserves and other assets to keep its economy afloat.  If France was to attack while the German army was fighting in Bohemia then the war is probably over pretty quickly as Germany has less military and established defences to oppose them and Hitler is almost certain to fall with through direct foreign intervention or by internal coup.

  Another factor here if the west goes to war over the Czechs then Poland will have to fight for the areas it gains and the Soviets, who had offered support for the Czechs could well intervene.  As such you could end up with a very loose German-Polish alliance facing up against the western powers and the Soviets.  And while the Red Army is a mess at this point its still very large and will improve over time.  Possibly equally importantly it would mean no alliance between the Nazis and Soviets so the former is going to be crippled by blockade as well.

  Steve

The Japanese did not place themselves onto the path of war solely by the China invasion and that it was not inevitable that conflict with the Western powers would come about. The sanctions regime that resulted in war only came about as Japanese expansionism into Southeast Asia as evidenced by the FIC occupation which, in turn, was only triggered by events in Western Europe; the first active war planning to attack the European possessions only occurred as a result of the rapid, unexpected collapse of the Europeans. Indeed, when the war first broke out, the newly established Abe Government declared neutrality and began making efforts to achieve friendly relations with the Europeans with the aim of cutting off aid to the KMT as they had managed to convince the British to do already.

As for the Munich Crisis, the German Army was far and away superior to the hypothetical Anglo-French-Czech forces. The border defenses they held were isolated via the Pro-German militias and were very light in character, with Post-Crisis analysis by the Germans figuring their combined arms offensive would've rapidly overwhelmed them. The Anglo-French, meanwhile, had no means of which to launch an offensive as they held no armored divisions, modern planes, had only recently started planning at the mass strategic level and, in the specific case of the British, had only two divisions which they could deploy. 

  The Japanese once they started the war with China had to either admit defeat, which the militants were unwilling to, or fight the western powers.  This is because the latter were supporting the KMT and making any 'victory' impossible.  The collapse of the western democracies in continental Europe made the occupation of FIC possible, especially since Germany  put pressure on Vichy to concede to Japanese demands but the primary reason for this was to cut off supply routes to China.  Similarly at the time Britain was forced to briefly end supplies via Burma.  In turn the occupation of FIC made the attacks on Malaya and DEI possible as much as the weakness of the defenders but that weakness wasn't the cause of the Japanese attack.  That was because western [primarily US] sanctions meant that Japan was on a deadline before it ran out of supplies to continue the war in China.  This is likely to occur earlier here as with no crisis in Europe Britain and France will be able to supply more support to China and put more pressure on Japan economically.  [The only exception might be if the US is a lot less active because its relying on the Europeans to oppose Japan and its business interests want to continue trading with Japan.  However this seems unlikely because the potential Chinese market and desire for influence there is much larger than the potential for trade with Japan while there is also tension because of the opposing naval and economic interests in the Far East.]

  A rudimentary force still expanding rapidly from a small base  was more powerful than the French army, which had maintained its strength for years and hence had a large number of trained conscripts to call upon?  Even without the British and Czechs added into the situation.  Given how much concern the German army showed over their performance against Poland, an easier task because they were larger by then, had room to maneuver and had the Soviets coming in from the east that seems doubtful.  How many Pz III's and IVs' did the Germans have in 1938 because they definitely won't be having any Pz 38's.  Yes there might be some fascist fanatics in the border areas who had been causing problems but the Czech army is well equipped and trained and do you really think most of the German minority would be willing to throw themselves untrained into attacks on it?  They also have established defensive position boosted by the terrain, albeit somewhat exposed after the occupation of Austria by Germany.  Yes if not supported they would lose but the Czechs would do a hell of a lot of damage to the German army, which it would have little capacity to repair.

  France and Britain may have had no formal armoured divisions but they had a hell of a lot more tanks than the Germans and a lot more experience in their use.  Even apart from the expected heavy losses the Germans would suffer attacking the Czechs.  If the French did attack while the German army was heavily involved against the Czechs what the hell does Germany have to stop them other than propaganda?

[Zyobot]

'Different 2000 Election Nominees'.

[Zyobot]

'Better 1972 Democratic Nominee?'. As in, one that stands a much better chance of toppling Tricky Dick from his throne than George McGovern, who got walloped on election night.

[lordroel]

Feb 24, 2020 19:27:00 GMT Zyobot said:

'Better 1972 Democratic Nominee?'. As in, one that stands a much better chance of toppling Tricky Dick from his throne than George McGovern, who got walloped on election night.

Why not have Ted Kennedy try.

[Zyobot]

Feb 24, 2020 19:29:31 GMT lordroel said:

Feb 24, 2020 19:27:00 GMT Zyobot said:

'Better 1972 Democratic Nominee?'. As in, one that stands a much better chance of toppling Tricky Dick from his throne than George McGovern, who got walloped on election night.

Why not have Ted Kennedy try.

Alright, then. If he runs and gets the nomination, I wonder by how big of a margin he'll win (or lose) compared to Richard Nixon, both in terms of the electoral and popular vote.

[lordroel]

Feb 24, 2020 19:32:20 GMT Zyobot said:

Feb 24, 2020 19:29:31 GMT lordroel said:

Why not have Ted Kennedy try.

Alright, then. If he runs and gets the nomination, I wonder by how big of a margin he'll win (or lose) compared to Richard Nixon, both in terms of the electoral and popular vote.

Well he might suffer the Kennedy effect, his brother was killed in 1968 while running for office.

[Zyobot]

Feb 24, 2020 21:16:34 GMT lordroel said:

Feb 24, 2020 19:32:20 GMT Zyobot said:

Alright, then. If he runs and gets the nomination, I wonder by how big of a margin he'll win (or lose) compared to Richard Nixon, both in terms of the electoral and popular vote.

Well he might suffer the Kennedy effect, his brother was killed in 1968 while running for office.

Ooh...that could be a problem. Still, who'd want to assassinate Ted Kennedy?

...Then again, I suppose people living in a TL where all the Kennedy's lived would be baffled at how his brethren got assassinated IOTL. So perhaps there's potential for some out-of-the-blue nutter to score a lucky blow while Ted's on the campaign trail. Maybe that's what dissuaded him from running in at least 1972, even if he wouldn't have publicly admitted to such.