stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835 
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on May 17, 2024 12:24:10 GMT
January 1 1988 US ISOT to January 1 1938. How can US help prevent ww2? This is still Reagan's presidency mind you. Even if Anti-Christ is sitting in the Kremlin the Soviet Union is no threat - no nukes no or close to no powerprojection capability. Loss of Thule AB not a significant problem. In 1938 World the US overseas bases isn't around though I guess the forces overseas and their depots have been brought home as part of ISOT - no? The US industry is still tasked to serve the Armed Forces as part of rebuilding programmes. The US entry of the IIRS The Military Balance 1987-88 consist of 13 pages!
Will the US be wanting to refight WWII - of course it will quite another fight with US Forces when deployed will defeat Nazi-Germany and Imperial Japan - Benny who?
France at this time was highly dependant upon US industrial output for its rearmament - aircraft and trucks though not the kind of aircraft of 1988. US Military trucks would do nicely - thank you!
If the US want to it may take out Hitler or it may fuel the British and French with the knowledge - strategy, operations, tactics and doctrine to make them defeat the German attack. The US have no alliance in 1938 though quite a number of smaller countries might well want such - Czechoslovakia and Austria who are in immediate danger - but also Poland, Scandinavian, Baltic and Low Countries. Spanish Civil War is ongoing - support for the Republican Government.. to pull it from the embrace of the Soviets! That may be too altruistic for the US to pursue.. Or just flood the World with text's of what happened in our WWII!
Though the prospect of robbing Soviet Union of any influence in Eastern Europe could be appealing to Reagan.
Providing alliance for everybody - more or less than Nazi-Germany, Soviet Union, Italy and Japan (Hungary, Franco) would really upset the world. Turkey wouldn't mind - the British and French of 1938 may be too hardheaded as some cost will come along - free market of a kind.
I suspect that Reagan will be interesting in doing something about Stalin and his regime, both because of his political values and knowing what a big threat the USSR was in his time but he will realise that the Nazis and Japan will be a more important issue. Also given what happened in WWII and the sheer horror of the massacres I think there will be considerable pressure to do something quickly, not just from liberals and the influential Jewish lobby. Ironically one problem might be that initially Britain and France would be less interested in going that far, at least until they learnt what was to happen. Here UTers from those and other countries could help influence them. I would also expect that most Germans in the US, especially the diplomats would be called for a 'liberation' of Germany from the Nazis.
Hopefully the UT forces outside the US will come along and be located inside the US. Both for their benefit but also because it will be a clear and immediate sign as to what's happened. If they just disappear along with presumably all US satellites and contact with the rest of the world there's going to be a lot of confusion and the possibility that someone will do something frantic, although hopefully this won't mean nukes being fired which I suspect would be unlikely.
I think both France and the UK would be eager to have the US as an ally as their wanted a more active US since 1920. They would want something probably less US centric than OTL NATO as their not been hammered by WWII and also they won't realise how massively more advanced this US is. Hence negotiations would probably be somewhat contorted for a while.
In terms of trade its not too many years since Britain finally abandon free trade so a more open trading system would be welcome to them, although they might have concerns once they realise how advanced the US is technologically. Albeit that a lot of modern US goods will struggle to find markets around the world because there's neither the understanding or infrastructure for them.
One issue here is how energy self-sufficient the US was in 1988? Reagan had encouraged a lot more fossil fuel development during his years in power but I'm not sure how far this had reduced US dependence on imports. IIRC this was still a concern for the US in 1990 about the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and fear that he might continue into the Saudi oil fields as much for US needs as the rest of the world. This could be important as in 1938 oil production was tiny compared to 1988, with many fields still undeveloped and gas production was pretty much unknown. As such the US could see a period of oil and gas shortages for a few years until they either boost their own production, develop fields elsewhere or cut their energy demands or some mixture of each.
If the US doesn't do anything about the USSR other than seeking a containment policy their almost certain to act in China to try and secure it against both Japan and also the CCP.
Not sure what reaction the 1938 world will have to 1988 US social and political values. Although Reagan was rolling back in a number of areas the idea of sexual and racial equality and acceptance of homosexuality are going to be huge shocks across much of the world.
Also while defeating Germany and Japan would be relatively easy the post-war occupation would be somewhat awkward. After all the vast majority of crimes haven't been committed yet and people like Hitler are going to be popular with many Germans while not just overthrowing them but also any sort of trials will be politically and legally awkward.
I'm not sure what 1988 US's attitude would be to European colonization or the founding of an Israeli state. They will favour ending the former and founding the latter but what measures they will take and how successfully would be issues. Britain, especially with Churchill not as PM is likely to accept Indian independence in a few years but the details will be complex.
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,732
Likes: 4,109
|
Post by 575 on May 17, 2024 12:31:54 GMT
Even if Anti-Christ is sitting in the Kremlin the Soviet Union is no threat - no nukes no or close to no powerprojection capability. Loss of Thule AB not a significant problem. In 1938 World the US overseas bases isn't around though I guess the forces overseas and their depots have been brought home as part of ISOT - no? The US industry is still tasked to serve the Armed Forces as part of rebuilding programmes. The US entry of the IIRS The Military Balance 1987-88 consist of 13 pages!
Will the US be wanting to refight WWII - of course it will quite another fight with US Forces when deployed will defeat Nazi-Germany and Imperial Japan - Benny who?
France at this time was highly dependant upon US industrial output for its rearmament - aircraft and trucks though not the kind of aircraft of 1988. US Military trucks would do nicely - thank you!
If the US want to it may take out Hitler or it may fuel the British and French with the knowledge - strategy, operations, tactics and doctrine to make them defeat the German attack. The US have no alliance in 1938 though quite a number of smaller countries might well want such - Czechoslovakia and Austria who are in immediate danger - but also Poland, Scandinavian, Baltic and Low Countries. Spanish Civil War is ongoing - support for the Republican Government.. to pull it from the embrace of the Soviets! That may be too altruistic for the US to pursue.. Or just flood the World with text's of what happened in our WWII!
Though the prospect of robbing Soviet Union of any influence in Eastern Europe could be appealing to Reagan.
Providing alliance for everybody - more or less than Nazi-Germany, Soviet Union, Italy and Japan (Hungary, Franco) would really upset the world. Turkey wouldn't mind - the British and French of 1938 may be too hardheaded as some cost will come along - free market of a kind.
I suspect that Reagan will be interesting in doing something about Stalin and his regime, both because of his political values and knowing what a big threat the USSR was in his time but he will realise that the Nazis and Japan will be a more important issue. Also given what happened in WWII and the sheer horror of the massacres I think there will be considerable pressure to do something quickly, not just from liberals and the influential Jewish lobby. Ironically one problem might be that initially Britain and France would be less interested in going that far, at least until they learnt what was to happen. Here UTers from those and other countries could help influence them. I would also expect that most Germans in the US, especially the diplomats would be called for a 'liberation' of Germany from the Nazis.
Hopefully the UT forces outside the US will come along and be located inside the US. Both for their benefit but also because it will be a clear and immediate sign as to what's happened. If they just disappear along with presumably all US satellites and contact with the rest of the world there's going to be a lot of confusion and the possibility that someone will do something frantic, although hopefully this won't mean nukes being fired which I suspect would be unlikely.
I think both France and the UK would be eager to have the US as an ally as their wanted a more active US since 1920. They would want something probably less US centric than OTL NATO as their not been hammered by WWII and also they won't realise how massively more advanced this US is. Hence negotiations would probably be somewhat contorted for a while.
In terms of trade its not too many years since Britain finally abandon free trade so a more open trading system would be welcome to them, although they might have concerns once they realise how advanced the US is technologically. Albeit that a lot of modern US goods will struggle to find markets around the world because there's neither the understanding or infrastructure for them.
One issue here is how energy self-sufficient the US was in 1988? Reagan had encouraged a lot more fossil fuel development during his years in power but I'm not sure how far this had reduced US dependence on imports. IIRC this was still a concern for the US in 1990 about the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and fear that he might continue into the Saudi oil fields as much for US needs as the rest of the world. This could be important as in 1938 oil production was tiny compared to 1988, with many fields still undeveloped and gas production was pretty much unknown. As such the US could see a period of oil and gas shortages for a few years until they either boost their own production, develop fields elsewhere or cut their energy demands or some mixture of each.
If the US doesn't do anything about the USSR other than seeking a containment policy their almost certain to act in China to try and secure it against both Japan and also the CCP.
Not sure what reaction the 1938 world will have to 1988 US social and political values. Although Reagan was rolling back in a number of areas the idea of sexual and racial equality and acceptance of homosexuality are going to be huge shocks across much of the world.
Also while defeating Germany and Japan would be relatively easy the post-war occupation would be somewhat awkward. After all the vast majority of crimes haven't been committed yet and people like Hitler are going to be popular with many Germans while not just overthrowing them but also any sort of trials will be politically and legally awkward.
I'm not sure what 1988 US's attitude would be to European colonization or the founding of an Israeli state. They will favour ending the former and founding the latter but what measures they will take and how successfully would be issues. Britain, especially with Churchill not as PM is likely to accept Indian independence in a few years but the details will be complex.
Forgot about oil -
US did still import af lot of oil from the ME - the years leading up to WWII saw US prospecting in Saudi-Arabia so accelerating that should well be possible. Would they whisper to the French about Algerian oil? Probably not Musso on Libyan! The British may get more info on Iraq and Persian oilfields and Nigeria.
The US could certainly put pressure on the Italians with regard to oil sales.
|
|
|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on May 17, 2024 13:50:36 GMT
1950 China ISOT to 1931.
Is the PRC strong enough to repel Japanese invasion of Manchuria? Also, what do Stalin and others do now given they have knowledge of Hitler and ww2? Will Hitler live long in this scenario?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on May 17, 2024 22:33:45 GMT
I suspect that Reagan will be interesting in doing something about Stalin and his regime, both because of his political values and knowing what a big threat the USSR was in his time but he will realise that the Nazis and Japan will be a more important issue. Also given what happened in WWII and the sheer horror of the massacres I think there will be considerable pressure to do something quickly, not just from liberals and the influential Jewish lobby. Ironically one problem might be that initially Britain and France would be less interested in going that far, at least until they learnt what was to happen. Here UTers from those and other countries could help influence them. I would also expect that most Germans in the US, especially the diplomats would be called for a 'liberation' of Germany from the Nazis.
Hopefully the UT forces outside the US will come along and be located inside the US. Both for their benefit but also because it will be a clear and immediate sign as to what's happened. If they just disappear along with presumably all US satellites and contact with the rest of the world there's going to be a lot of confusion and the possibility that someone will do something frantic, although hopefully this won't mean nukes being fired which I suspect would be unlikely.
I think both France and the UK would be eager to have the US as an ally as their wanted a more active US since 1920. They would want something probably less US centric than OTL NATO as their not been hammered by WWII and also they won't realise how massively more advanced this US is. Hence negotiations would probably be somewhat contorted for a while.
In terms of trade its not too many years since Britain finally abandon free trade so a more open trading system would be welcome to them, although they might have concerns once they realise how advanced the US is technologically. Albeit that a lot of modern US goods will struggle to find markets around the world because there's neither the understanding or infrastructure for them.
One issue here is how energy self-sufficient the US was in 1988? Reagan had encouraged a lot more fossil fuel development during his years in power but I'm not sure how far this had reduced US dependence on imports. IIRC this was still a concern for the US in 1990 about the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and fear that he might continue into the Saudi oil fields as much for US needs as the rest of the world. This could be important as in 1938 oil production was tiny compared to 1988, with many fields still undeveloped and gas production was pretty much unknown. As such the US could see a period of oil and gas shortages for a few years until they either boost their own production, develop fields elsewhere or cut their energy demands or some mixture of each.
If the US doesn't do anything about the USSR other than seeking a containment policy their almost certain to act in China to try and secure it against both Japan and also the CCP.
Not sure what reaction the 1938 world will have to 1988 US social and political values. Although Reagan was rolling back in a number of areas the idea of sexual and racial equality and acceptance of homosexuality are going to be huge shocks across much of the world.
Also while defeating Germany and Japan would be relatively easy the post-war occupation would be somewhat awkward. After all the vast majority of crimes haven't been committed yet and people like Hitler are going to be popular with many Germans while not just overthrowing them but also any sort of trials will be politically and legally awkward.
I'm not sure what 1988 US's attitude would be to European colonization or the founding of an Israeli state. They will favour ending the former and founding the latter but what measures they will take and how successfully would be issues. Britain, especially with Churchill not as PM is likely to accept Indian independence in a few years but the details will be complex.
Forgot about oil -
US did still import af lot of oil from the ME - the years leading up to WWII saw US prospecting in Saudi-Arabia so accelerating that should well be possible. Would they whisper to the French about Algerian oil? Probably not Musso on Libyan! The British may get more info on Iraq and Persian oilfields and Nigeria.
The US could certainly put pressure on the Italians with regard to oil sales.
Well unless non-Americans inside the US are excluded some of those nations are going to get such information. Not even diplomatic sources. Anybody with access to a public library could get a few books out with a hell of a lot of info from geographical resources, through future events, to technological change, of which an high priority would be related to nuclear matters. Overall the democratic powers are likely to benefit more as say 1988 German or Japanese people may be less likely to support their 1938 government. However even if no non-Americans are present you could probably get some local people willing to support just about any group whether through belief or because they think they can profit from it.
One other point of interest. Would what's been brought back of the US include its territories? I assume not but if they do Japan has suddenly lost a lot of islands in the western Pacific which will weaken their position and cause them a lot of concern and anger.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on May 18, 2024 3:38:47 GMT
The Middle East and North Africa are his I guess. Probably, LOL.
For starters, Saddam’s already amassed a large army in preparation for invading Kuwait, so dropped into a time when Iraq was ruled by the Ottoman Empire in the immediate lead-up to World War I… well, get ready for the Arab Revolt on Steroids (though I doubt Iraq would be any nicer to their new subjects than the Ottomans were). Probably also brutal beatdowns directed at the Ottomans, too, especially given Saddam's brutality streak. The fact the Turks and Arabs have so much beef historically won't help, either, so there's that. |
|
|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on May 18, 2024 4:21:27 GMT
On the downside there's no market for Iraqi oil yet so expect a major economic crisis to hit Iraq.
I wonder if Iraq had any pharmaceutical industry in 1990? Because antibiotics are going to be one of few good contributions of Iraq to the world of 1910.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on May 18, 2024 9:34:45 GMT
WWI would be Saddam against all the European great powers I think and the former is likely to win big, at least for a while. How much of his military infrastructure and equipment Iraq could maintain would be the big issue. However I fear he could go a very long way before being stopped, if at all. It could be that some assassination or other internal conflict eventually breaks up his empire but its going to be difficult/impossible to stop.
One other nasty factor is that he had plentiful chemical weapons and experience in using it. Along with missiles and an ongoing nuclear programme.
|
|
|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on May 18, 2024 14:53:12 GMT
Plymouth colony from 1690 (population approx. 7,000) ISOT to 1400 AD.
stevep, 575
What's sure is that the diseases present in the colony are going to kill 80-90% of all natives in 1400 AD North America. Then the colony will have plenty of space to grow.
What future awaits the Plymouth colony other than a significant expansion? What's interesting about that colony is that it had both a very high birth rate and a very strong emphasis on education. The predecessor of the Harvard University is already in place in 1690.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on May 18, 2024 21:06:21 GMT
WWI would be Saddam against all the European great powers I think and the former is likely to win big, at least for a while. How much of his military infrastructure and equipment Iraq could maintain would be the big issue. However I fear he could go a very long way before being stopped, if at all. It could be that some assassination or other internal conflict eventually breaks up his empire but its going to be difficult/impossible to stop.
One other nasty factor is that he had plentiful chemical weapons and experience in using it. Along with missiles and an ongoing nuclear programme.
Agreed on all points, but would like to add a few more.
Besides infrastructure and maintenance, I suppose Saddam's biggest constraints (which was kind of a given, no matter what) is his lack of power projection. He can expel the Ottomans and miscellaneous Europeans out of the Middle East for sure, but can he counter-invade the latter or decimate their industrial base at long distances like a back-timed US Military could? I doubt it, though of course, I imagine the shock value of Saddam's 1990 military steamrolling his downtimer enemies (who haven't even been battle-hardened by World War I yet, mind you) would show who's boss in the region.
Not sure how self-sufficient Iraq is, but at least Kuwait should be an easy picking. At least in theory, it should cover Saddam's oil needs, though I'm not sure whether the Iraqis can bring and erect their own rigs and refineries to extract the reserves on their own... or if they just seized rigs and refineries that Kuwait had already set up IOTL. If the latter, then Iraq had better get cracking on that.
Lastly, how shocked would downtimers be by Saddam deploying chemical weapons, really? To my recollection, those were quite normal pre-WWI (and lacked the "horror factor" we associate with them today), though I suppose being on the receiving end of Saddam's brutality for a change would make chemical weapons taboo earlier amongst the European powers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on May 19, 2024 8:25:46 GMT
1905 Albert Einstein ISOT to 1660, becomes the teacher of Isaac Newton.
How does science develop with the Newton-Einstein combo in 17th century?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on May 19, 2024 15:51:46 GMT
WWI would be Saddam against all the European great powers I think and the former is likely to win big, at least for a while. How much of his military infrastructure and equipment Iraq could maintain would be the big issue. However I fear he could go a very long way before being stopped, if at all. It could be that some assassination or other internal conflict eventually breaks up his empire but its going to be difficult/impossible to stop.
One other nasty factor is that he had plentiful chemical weapons and experience in using it. Along with missiles and an ongoing nuclear programme.
Agreed on all points, but would like to add a few more.
Besides infrastructure and maintenance, I suppose Saddam's biggest constraints (which was kind of a given, no matter what) is his lack of power projection. He can expel the Ottomans and miscellaneous Europeans out of the Middle East for sure, but can he counter-invade the latter or decimate their industrial base at long distances like a back-timed US Military could? I doubt it, though of course, I imagine the shock value of Saddam's 1990 military steamrolling his downtimer enemies (who haven't even been battle-hardened by World War I yet, mind you) would show who's boss in the region.
Not sure how self-sufficient Iraq is, but at least Kuwait should be an easy picking. At least in theory, it should cover Saddam's oil needs, though I'm not sure whether the Iraqis can bring and erect their own rigs and refineries to extract the reserves on their own... or if they just seized rigs and refineries that Kuwait had already set up IOTL. If the latter, then Iraq had better get cracking on that.
Lastly, how shocked would downtimers be by Saddam deploying chemical weapons, really? To my recollection, those were quite normal pre-WWI (and lacked the "horror factor" we associate with them today), though I suppose being on the receiving end of Saddam's brutality for a change would make chemical weapons taboo earlier amongst the European powers.
He could do a lot to shock damage at least although if he ends up at war with just about all the great powers - which seems likely considering the interest threatened - he would lack allies with manpower to supplement what Iraq could supply.
As I understand it Iraq was still a major exporter so he's going to have easily enough in the short term and probably for longer. He was struggling because the other oil states especially refused to cancel debts related to their support during the war with Iran and also were keeping oil prices low, while he wanted them higher. They could drop a lot here because there's relatively little demand for oil at this stage but since his former debtors aren't about that's not an issue for him. Is this after the occupation of Kuwait? If not or its simply not included in the ISOT then there are no wells there yet, although of course Saddam and his people know where all that oil and gas is.
Very shocked. Especially if air delivered and the sort of advanced chemical weapons he could deploy. There were laws against their use prior to WWI which Germany breached prompting others to follow but they started with relatively primitive systems with chlorine gas being released from cylinders and relying on the wind to move it. Also the strength of the repulsion was shown by the strong restrictions applied after WWI albeit that both Iraq and the Iran used it in their war.
Thinking about it there would be parallels with HG Well's War of the World's here, although without any real hope of bacteria saving the 1910 world from this new, extremely powerful invader. Only the limits of what power Saddam can project and how far he wants to go.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on May 19, 2024 16:06:55 GMT
Hmm… 🤔
Controversial opinion, but I wonder if ATL Ottoman front will be more brutal than OTL Ottoman front was? Not just due to Iraq’s 80-year tech advantage, but also because it’s ruled by a brutal strongman who’ll use and abuse his advantage as much as he pleases.
In fact, I’d even wager that this time, it’ll be Saddam Hussein (and not Talat Pasha) who perpetrates the first great genocide of ATL 20th century. Irony is, the Turks may very well be on the receiving end. Even disregarding historical Arab-Turkish enmity, Saddam’s never taken kindly to resistance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on May 20, 2024 8:40:03 GMT
Soviet Far East from 8th August 1945 to 22nd June 1941.
This is a slight variation on one of my previous ISOTs - except this time it's full one day before the start of the Manchurian Operation and the operation never starts.
Question: how much do the Far Eastern troops with T-34/85s, SU/ISU-152s and modern fighter aircraft help with Barbarossa?
Soviet trooos around Manchuria at the time:
1,577,725 troops
27,086 artillery pieces
1,152 rocket launchers
5,556 tanks and self-propelled guns
3,721 aircraft
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on May 20, 2024 15:39:58 GMT
Hmm… 🤔 Controversial opinion, but I wonder if ATL Ottoman front will be more brutal than OTL Ottoman front was? Not just due to Iraq’s 80-year tech advantage, but also because it’s ruled by a brutal strongman who’ll use and abuse his advantage as much as he pleases. In fact, I’d even wager that this time, it’ll be Saddam Hussein (and not Talat Pasha) who perpetrates the first great genocide of ATL 20th century. Irony is, the Turks may very well be on the receiving end. Even disregarding historical Arab-Turkish enmity, Saddam’s never taken kindly to resistance.
Not the 1st, given the SW African genocide has already occurred, albeit numbers were much less than for the Armenians OTL let alone if Saddam went whole hog against the Turks. However things could be very nasty in Anatolia and elsewhere where resistance occurs.
If Saddam did really get brutal with the Turks how would the Kurds - who are already mistrusted by him from OTL, Armenians, Greeks and other react?
Enva Pasha had as much brutality as Saddam but Saddam has much greater organization and power capacity to ramp up death tolls.  |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on May 20, 2024 15:51:58 GMT
Soviet Far East from 8th August 1945 to 22nd June 1941. This is a slight variation on one of my previous ISOTs - except this time it's full one day before the start of the Manchurian Operation and the operation never starts. Question: how much do the Far Eastern troops with T-34/85s, SU/ISU-152s and modern fighter aircraft help with Barbarossa? Soviet trooos around Manchuria at the time: 1,577,725 troops 27,086 artillery pieces 1,152 rocket launchers 5,556 tanks and self-propelled guns 3,721 aircraft
Similar to the previous one other than there's no certain war with Japan. As such the limitations of the 45 forces are how quickly can they be moved west, how much can they be supported and how much would Stalin trust them? Not to mention assorted other populations and people who OTL saw the Germans, at least initially, as liberators until they found out the Nazis were even worse than the Soviets in most cases.
Plus how much information might reach the rest of the world. Taking the ISOT literally the 41 forces and population are replaced by those there in 45 and that could well include some non-Soviet people dealing with things like L-L but how much information they can get out and how long would it take to be trusted.
Also your going to have some duplication of assorted people who are in the region in 45 but elsewhere in 41. Not sure if this would include anyone significant OTL. Did look at Kim ll Sung but it appears he was in the Soviet Far East in 41 so only the 45 version would be present.
|
|
