Danish AH by historians!!!

[Max Sinister]

Nov 26, 2023 9:51:53 GMT 575 said:

Nov 26, 2023 8:38:00 GMT Max Sinister said:

Nothing against Scandinavians, but I don't think they could've succeeded against two great powers combined.

Which event are You referring to? 1864?

Yes, exactly.

[575]

Vladimir Petrov avoid WW3 26 September 1983

Fourth radioprogramme of DR 27 December 2020

Would it be a full scale nuclear war?

Ph.D History, Research Assistant the Military Academy of Denmarks Rasmus Dahlberg who have written a number of AH's that are so-so in one instance having the Roman Empire live on till 2008 – year of publishing of one book I had the misfortune of buying but there was so little AH to get in Danish. Soon after I found another AH anthology with the USAAF attack on Denmark mentioned in the former post which also had a very interesting take on Strueensee Doctor of mad King Christian VII who defeat the coup at him.

Initially outcome Nuclear raknarok.

Petrov being at duty at bunker Sepukov 15 of Soviet Airdefence watch first one and then 4 more missiles be launched from the Continental USA.
Dahlberg reading Fatherland by Robert Harris was drawn into AH and wiev AH as a strong tool for historians. Unfortunately for a long time Denmark have been nested in the German/European history tradition.

The period:
You could watch Vamos a la Playa – with english subtitles. Thatcher, Reagan and Kohl in the West and Andropov in the East experiencing a bad harvest. A real risk of nuclear war should the USSR collapse. Weekly Sirene tests and both sides able to destroy the mankind.
Also in this year the nuclear parity tilted to the West due to Reagans ”launching” of the SDI/Star Wars. Kremlin frustrated as it seemed US was gearing up to pass the USSR.
All may seem sci-fi to us today.

Petrov decide to trust his insticts – gut feeling. Son of a WWII fighter pilot, Air Defence officer knowing well the 25 min reaction time to any sight of launching of Western ICBMs. Though a man of the military not party – neigther his father nor he joined the Communist Party. Even if having orders to pass information up the chain he doesn't.
In fact the Spy-Satellite deceting the US launch was all new with new data systems. Petrov found that nobody sane would risk annihalation with just launching 5 ICBMs even if just 1 September 1983 Korean Airliner KAL 007 had been downed by a Soviet fighter aircraft.
Actually the new software had a problem with Solar reflection which it interpreted as launch vapour.

With and alcoholic Marshal Ustinov head of USSR Defence Min. things could well have gone all out.
Though perhaps with only USSR hitting USA and vice-versa..
Even in such a case the Earth would have been covered in radioactive dust and lots of fall out.

Petrov was reprimanded he did not react as prescribed and then left the AD forces for a job in the military industry as a software developer for satellites.

Post Cold War he was feated as a hero as the Man that saved the World.
Petrovs comment to all the western celebration: allways remember Your stomach.

Something on the light side – not surprising me.

[575]

Last one of this season - only 5 more..

Al Gore win the 2000 Presidential elections

Fifth radioprogramme of DR 31 December 2020

USA leading in renewable/sustainable energy – no 9/11?

Professor Jørn Brøndal, University of Southern Denmark, American etnic, racial and political history since 1865 – aspects of American Historiography. Have written as part of a work on a possible counterfactual but not a main theme. General interpretation of AH as an Intellectual pastime. Though think that it is interesting to ponder what would have happened to USA should Lincoln or Kennedy not have been assassinated!

Background to the main question – the votes of Florida deciding the outcome was a meagre 537 which was ultimately decided by the Surpreme Court of USA not to continue counting. A Surpreme Court dominated by members elected by Republican Presidents.
USA at the time was rich, there was no war. Gore wanted to pay off National Debts and continue developing Social Security. Bush wanted tax cuts. Both wanted rebuilding of the Military. Gore had served in Vietnam in an effort to aid his fathers political career.
Gore seen as progressive with an interest in science and computers. Had written ”Earth in the balance” 1992.

Now WI Gore had won the 2000 elections? He would preside over an America becoming increasingly polarized in the vein of Newt Gingrich ”contract with America”. A divided Congress would make ruling difficult. He would want to get out of the shadow of Bill Clinton so adopt a pragmatic course; pay off National Debt, increase Military funding, continue growth. Green energy adaption would be difficult – Gore had been party to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol though he wouldn't abide by it though he might try to do something about late in his presidency – possible 2 term – without involving Congress. Definately no end to fossil fuel.
The racial divide wouldn't be an issue of his.
Imprint on US society – 9/11 might have been averted as there had been terrorist attack on the US so the situation of a continued system may have reacted differently by going for al-Qaeda/bin Laden though if 9/11 happens which it might well he would undertake the situation seriously and probably invade Afghanistan to end al-Qaeda/bin Laden but not Iraq.
Brøndal refer here to a counterfactual book on the War in Iraq handled by Gore in the same way as Bush, jr. Brøndal think Gore might have treated the Iraqi's different during the immediate occupation to ease tension.
Gore had in a speech September 2002 mentioned that he wouldn't have greenlighted Iraq.

Would there have been a visible difference in politics with Gore? He would try finish Afghanistan before going on Iraq – on the new National Security Staff, the Patriot Act Gore said in a speech November 2003 that he would have chosen a more easy going approach though Gore at that time considered running for the next elections.

A jewish vice-president Joe Lieberman would probably be no problem during 2000.

Gore would have had another reputation because the individual do matter – small differences against Bush even if he did a lot of similar actions. So possibly not the heavy anti-Bush demonstrations in London and Germany during a Gore presidency.

[stevep]

Dec 31, 2023 16:19:34 GMT 575 said:

Last one of this season - only 5 more..

Al Gore win the 2000 Presidential elections

Fifth radioprogramme of DR 31 December 2020

USA leading in renewable/sustainable energy – no 9/11?

Professor Jørn Brøndal, University of Southern Denmark, American etnic, racial and political history since 1865 – aspects of American Historiography. Have written as part of a work on a possible counterfactual but not a main theme. General interpretation of AH as an Intellectual pastime. Though think that it is interesting to ponder what would have happened to USA should Lincoln or Kennedy not have been assassinated!

Background to the main question – the votes of Florida deciding the outcome was a meagre 537 which was ultimately decided by the Surpreme Court of USA not to continue counting. A Surpreme Court dominated by members elected by Republican Presidents.
USA at the time was rich, there was no war. Gore wanted to pay off National Debts and continue developing Social Security. Bush wanted tax cuts. Both wanted rebuilding of the Military. Gore had served in Vietnam in an effort to aid his fathers political career.
Gore seen as progressive with an interest in science and computers. Had written ”Earth in the balance” 1992.

Now WI Gore had won the 2000 elections? He would preside over an America becoming increasingly polarized in the vein of Newt Gingrich ”contract with America”. A divided Congress would make ruling difficult. He would want to get out of the shadow of Bill Clinton so adopt a pragmatic course; pay off National Debt, increase Military funding, continue growth. Green energy adaption would be difficult – Gore had been party to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol though he wouldn't abide by it though he might try to do something about late in his presidency – possible 2 term – without involving Congress. Definately no end to fossil fuel.
The racial divide wouldn't be an issue of his.
Imprint on US society – 9/11 might have been averted as there had been terrorist attack on the US so the situation of a continued system may have reacted differently by going for al-Qaeda/bin Laden though if 9/11 happens which it might well he would undertake the situation seriously and probably invade Afghanistan to end al-Qaeda/bin Laden but not Iraq.
Brøndal refer here to a counterfactual book on the War in Iraq handled by Gore in the same way as Bush, jr. Brøndal think Gore might have treated the Iraqi's different during the immediate occupation to ease tension.
Gore had in a speech September 2002 mentioned that he wouldn't have greenlighted Iraq.

Would there have been a visible difference in politics with Gore? He would try finish Afghanistan before going on Iraq – on the new National Security Staff, the Patriot Act Gore said in a speech November 2003 that he would have chosen a more easy going approach though Gore at that time considered running for the next elections.

A jewish vice-president Joe Lieberman would probably be no problem during 2000.

Gore would have had another reputation because the individual do matter – small differences against Bush even if he did a lot of similar actions. So possibly not the heavy anti-Bush demonstrations in London and Germany during a Gore presidency.

  Could be an interesting option.  Should be better that Bush in the short term at least - never know in longer terms what might happen.  Agree that even if 9-11 still occurs he's unlikely to invade Iraq, although that would leave it a running sore under Saddam rather than one under US occupation.  Hopefully be more aware of the need to include local interests in Afghanistan.

  He would definitely do more on the environmental side and you could see an earlier development of a lot of tech plus most of all some actual implementation which is the real problem in many areas.

  Key thing is what happens with the Republicans.  Do they go even harder right quicker or does it mean they stay more moderate and middle of the road?  The latter would likely give them the White House in 2004 or 2008 but with the US in a healthier state now. 

[575]

Dec 31, 2023 22:39:58 GMT stevep said:

Dec 31, 2023 16:19:34 GMT 575 said:

Last one of this season - only 5 more..

Al Gore win the 2000 Presidential elections

Fifth radioprogramme of DR 31 December 2020

USA leading in renewable/sustainable energy – no 9/11?

Professor Jørn Brøndal, University of Southern Denmark, American etnic, racial and political history since 1865 – aspects of American Historiography. Have written as part of a work on a possible counterfactual but not a main theme. General interpretation of AH as an Intellectual pastime. Though think that it is interesting to ponder what would have happened to USA should Lincoln or Kennedy not have been assassinated!

Background to the main question – the votes of Florida deciding the outcome was a meagre 537 which was ultimately decided by the Surpreme Court of USA not to continue counting. A Surpreme Court dominated by members elected by Republican Presidents.
USA at the time was rich, there was no war. Gore wanted to pay off National Debts and continue developing Social Security. Bush wanted tax cuts. Both wanted rebuilding of the Military. Gore had served in Vietnam in an effort to aid his fathers political career.
Gore seen as progressive with an interest in science and computers. Had written ”Earth in the balance” 1992.

Now WI Gore had won the 2000 elections? He would preside over an America becoming increasingly polarized in the vein of Newt Gingrich ”contract with America”. A divided Congress would make ruling difficult. He would want to get out of the shadow of Bill Clinton so adopt a pragmatic course; pay off National Debt, increase Military funding, continue growth. Green energy adaption would be difficult – Gore had been party to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol though he wouldn't abide by it though he might try to do something about late in his presidency – possible 2 term – without involving Congress. Definately no end to fossil fuel.
The racial divide wouldn't be an issue of his.
Imprint on US society – 9/11 might have been averted as there had been terrorist attack on the US so the situation of a continued system may have reacted differently by going for al-Qaeda/bin Laden though if 9/11 happens which it might well he would undertake the situation seriously and probably invade Afghanistan to end al-Qaeda/bin Laden but not Iraq.
Brøndal refer here to a counterfactual book on the War in Iraq handled by Gore in the same way as Bush, jr. Brøndal think Gore might have treated the Iraqi's different during the immediate occupation to ease tension.
Gore had in a speech September 2002 mentioned that he wouldn't have greenlighted Iraq.

Would there have been a visible difference in politics with Gore? He would try finish Afghanistan before going on Iraq – on the new National Security Staff, the Patriot Act Gore said in a speech November 2003 that he would have chosen a more easy going approach though Gore at that time considered running for the next elections.

A jewish vice-president Joe Lieberman would probably be no problem during 2000.

Gore would have had another reputation because the individual do matter – small differences against Bush even if he did a lot of similar actions. So possibly not the heavy anti-Bush demonstrations in London and Germany during a Gore presidency.

  Could be an interesting option.  Should be better that Bush in the short term at least - never know in longer terms what might happen.  Agree that even if 9-11 still occurs he's unlikely to invade Iraq, although that would leave it a running sore under Saddam rather than one under US occupation.  Hopefully be more aware of the need to include local interests in Afghanistan.

  He would definitely do more on the environmental side and you could see an earlier development of a lot of tech plus most of all some actual implementation which is the real problem in many areas.

  Key thing is what happens with the Republicans.  Do they go even harder right quicker or does it mean they stay more moderate and middle of the road?  The latter would likely give them the White House in 2004 or 2008 but with the US in a healthier state now. 

Agree - I understood that the baseline would be a better US when Gore leave the White House. Not so bad losses in Afg. and Iraq - if in Iraq at all and at least not accused of excusing a war upon it - and a more healthy economy.

[575]

Danish Radio series on Counterfactuals – Season 1 Episode 1, 23 June 2020

WI Gavrilo Princip misses his shot 28 June 1914 – Franz Ferdinand survive the Assassination in Sarajevo.

Host Ph.D Adam Holm interview Ph.D Lecturer Claus Bundgaard Christensen Roskilde University Centre, head Institute of Communication and Humanities, Memories and use of the past who have written several works on WWI and II.
Christensen find the premise of counter factual use in history is okay though speculations above the immediate subject is difficult as too much will change. To use counter factuals its impotant to know the circumstances of the time and from this it will be possible to deduce what could have happened.
Christensen does use counterfactuals in his teaching with the outline of limitations.

Initially Christensen outline that there was really a possibility that the assassination had gone wrong in that another earlier in the day had disillusioned the perpetraters but Austro-Hungarina change of plans served the motorcade just in front of Princip who then fired his shots.

Following a lengthy drawing up of the European and International Powers situation with the feeling that a confrontation of Germany and Austria-Hungary on one side and France, Russia and perhaps Britain on the other had been brewing Christensen finally closes with Princips shots did themselves trigger war but wasn't in themselves the cause of war – that rested with the diplomatic players of Europe. It would have been a period of a few years had Princip missed his shots or not fired at all.

I haven't spelled out all the reasons given as I assumed such is well know to the members here.

[575]

Second programme season 1, 23 June 2020

Danish internment 1943 of Danish Jews.

Ph.D Adam Holm interview Associate Professor Ph.D Sofie Lene Bak, Kopenhagen University, Saxo Institute, Holocaust – antisemitism – racism researcher who use counterfactuals in her teaching though the hard part is to get students embrace the concept and accept history isn't determinism. She use it to have students identify important persons and episodes in history and that study of individualts is comme in faut. Bak emphasize that you have to rely on 1 POD as even such is enough to muddle the waters. It is important to realize that important decisions may depend upon random events.

28 August 1943 the collaboration of the Danish Government with Nazi-Germany had ended. The Ministerial Heads of Departments lead by Foreign Office head Niels Svenningsen then executed cooperation of Danish State Institutions vis-a-vis Nazi-Germany.
The collaboration had been seen as the instrument to remain politically independent. It had been endangered during the frequent conflicts with the Germans where rouding up of the Jews or segregation of them from Danish society had been threatened. The Copenhagen Synagoge had stayed open and even Danish Nazi's convicted of crimes against Jews.
The continual threat of Nazi rounding up of the Jews had experienced also in the situation in Norway where the Jews had been continually harassed during the occupation and who had been rounded up and sent to Germany October 1942.
The Wansee Conference had included the Danish Jews in the Endlösung plan even if only 7000 – the Norwegian Jews numbered only 2000. However the Nazi administration in Denmark did take a pragmatic stance as to how the problem was solved in the day to day running of things – as long as this was free of problems the Danes were more less left to themselves. This was possible because the political process of Nazi-Germany wasn't a monolith – it had room for local adaptation and was in essence a chaotic system.
When the Nazi plan of rounding up Danish Jews became know to the Heads of Department they tried to preemt the Nazi detaiment of the Jews in a way that had been done by the time of Barbarossa where Danish Police had rounded up the Danish Communist Party Members and affiliates and placed them in protective detention at Horserød Prison in order to keep the safeguarding of these Danish Nationals with Danish authorities. Such a plan was conceived by 28 September 1943 when the German Embassy at Copenhagen tipped off Niels Svenningsen of the impending operation.
During a meeting 29 September 1943 the Departemental Heads discussed the possibilities of protecting the Jewish subjects. The Jewish Community Leaders who were rather conservative were contacted and informed of an internment like that of the Communists and agreed to this. As it was understood that the window of operation was very narrow it was decided that the Jews should be informed of the plan as soon as possible and then asked to report to the local Police Station for internment. The Departemental Heads knew that Nazi rounding up of the Danish Jews would mean deportation to Work Camps where they would perish.
As Niels Svenningsen tried to arrange a meeting with Dr. Werner Best Nazi Plenipotentiary of Denmark during the following days he was unavailable. When Svenningsen finally was able to meet Best on 1 October Svenningsen was ready to suggest Danish Police forcibly rounding up the Jews. Best rejected even such proposal as the operation had been initiated.
Svenningsen learned post 2 October when the operation had finished that also those Communists still in Danish Internment had been removed by the Nazi's and shipped to Germany along the 300 Jews that had been apprehended. Svenningsen then understood that the rationale of the plan had evaporated.

Should Werner Best have agreed to a Danish Internment of the Danish Jews this might have meant forcibly rounding up of the Jews by Danish Police and later transport to Germany as happened in the case of the Norwegian Jews.
That would have been devastating to society post war and to the possibility of Denmark becoming even a de facto Allied nation. Certainly no place of honour at Vad Yashem.

***

A WI I'm very happy not to have come to pass.

[575]

Had a spare moment to continue this - only two episodes to go!
***

Third programme Season 1, 23 June 2020.

D-Day fail.
Ph.D Adam Holm introduce guest Ph.D Lecturer Jakob Sørensen author of ”Operation Overlord”.

Sørensen find Counter Factual discussion of subject in order as he did write the book and edited a book some years ago a counter factual anthology but it isn't his everyday use in work. AH subjects should be limited in time frame and duration – some days up to months.
One of his interesting reads is Niall Furguson ”Roads not taken” CF.

Generally military operations open for more possibilities of CF as the possibles are always considered in planning.
Planning comprised beach sand samples to see if tanks could traverse these. The operation HAD to work and preparations had been ongoing for years – invasions in the Med – Dieppe Raid and other diversions.

If D-Day failed Eisenhower had prepared a speech to this event.
There was several uncertainty factors – a full moon required for the Paratroops navigation, low time to launch beach landings for Engineers to clear obstacles. If a fail like due to weather it might be a month before similar circumstances would occur.
Weather: bad weather forecast. New forecast as postponement was considered made for GO. Bad weather could have increased landing problems at Omaha and Utah beaches but the Allies had air superiority.
Weather could also affect Para/Glider landings especially in British-Canadian area where key bridges might not the captured and held preventing German Panzer counterattacks.

German troops: low quality in thing string of bunkers with inadequete ammo. Luftwaffe few resources to do reconnaisance over British Isles. Effective secrecy on Allied side. Intel gathering by reconnaisance. German troops may have been reinforced if landing areas known or better pinpointed – as it was German alert time would be when the invasion was spotted in binoculars!
Greater standartizing of equipment and guns hodge-podge of German, French, Czech etc., Panzers allowed to react earlier though it probably wouldn't stop invasion from getting ashore at least in British-Canadian sector though having to endure heavier counter attacks. US possibly going ashore in southern France while British-Canadian held the beach with little resources for a break-out.

One overlooked item by Allies was the Bocage of Normandy which held up advance for weeks. Gemans could poured more toops into these.
Longer outlook Germans might thin down troops in west to stall Soviets though Soviets would in the end advance west but no guess on how far. No US-Soviet fight in scenario. Though still a US focus on Europe first.

Allies: Invasion would work as they choose time, place and weapons!

But might incur longer time to get off the beaches and a longer US slug up France toward German border and Nazi end.

[stevep]

Jun 24, 2024 21:02:09 GMT 575 said:

Had a spare moment to continue this - only two episodes to go!
***

Third programme Season 1, 23 June 2020.

D-Day fail.
Ph.D Adam Holm introduce guest Ph.D Lecturer Jakob Sørensen author of ”Operation Overlord”.

Sørensen find Counter Factual discussion of subject in order as he did write the book and edited a book some years ago a counter factual anthology but it isn't his everyday use in work. AH subjects should be limited in time frame and duration – some days up to months.
One of his interesting reads is Niall Furguson ”Roads not taken” CF.

Generally military operations open for more possibilities of CF as the possibles are always considered in planning.
Planning comprised beach sand samples to see if tanks could traverse these. The operation HAD to work and preparations had been ongoing for years – invasions in the Med – Dieppe Raid and other diversions.

If D-Day failed Eisenhower had prepared a speech to this event.
There was several uncertainty factors – a full moon required for the Paratroops navigation, low time to launch beach landings for Engineers to clear obstacles. If a fail like due to weather it might be a month before similar circumstances would occur.
Weather: bad weather forecast. New forecast as postponement was considered made for GO. Bad weather could have increased landing problems at Omaha and Utah beaches but the Allies had air superiority.
Weather could also affect Para/Glider landings especially in British-Canadian area where key bridges might not the captured and held preventing German Panzer counterattacks.

German troops: low quality in thing string of bunkers with inadequete ammo. Luftwaffe few resources to do reconnaisance over British Isles. Effective secrecy on Allied side. Intel gathering by reconnaisance. German troops may have been reinforced if landing areas known or better pinpointed – as it was German alert time would be when the invasion was spotted in binoculars!
Greater standartizing of equipment and guns hodge-podge of German, French, Czech etc., Panzers allowed to react earlier though it probably wouldn't stop invasion from getting ashore at least in British-Canadian sector though having to endure heavier counter attacks. US possibly going ashore in southern France while British-Canadian held the beach with little resources for a break-out.

One overlooked item by Allies was the Bocage of Normandy which held up advance for weeks. Gemans could poured more toops into these.
Longer outlook Germans might thin down troops in west to stall Soviets though Soviets would in the end advance west but no guess on how far. No US-Soviet fight in scenario. Though still a US focus on Europe first.

Allies: Invasion would work as they choose time, place and weapons!

But might incur longer time to get off the beaches and a longer US slug up France toward German border and Nazi end.

  Very interesting thanks.  A successful invasion is often seen as pretty much a certainty given the sheer firepower superiority and the massive amount of planning and preparation the allies put into the operations but I think there were chances of things failing even then.  So many things can go wrong and in war they often do.

 On the US PSB channel I have seen a series of programmes that cover the landings and early stages of the break-out and the professional history mentions that on Omaha Beach there were only about 400 German troops defending the heights.  As such bloody Omaha could have gone a lot worse if more forces had been there and given that was a key link between Utah and the Anglo-Canadian beaches you might have seen the landings seriously compromised to put it mildly.   

  Or the other one that comes to mind is that the 'weather window' on the 6th either hadn't opened or had proved to be a false one and in the latter case even moderate winds/storms etc again seriously impedes the landings.  - This could be especially bad if the amphibious Sherman's had been largely/totally lost on all landings, not just Omaha.  Of course the other Hobart's Funnies - weather permitting - would have landed on the three eastern beaches but without the Sherman's that could have made getting off the other beaches more difficult as well.  Also it would probably have caused more problems for the para and glider landings, again Pegasus Bridge possibly being the most obvious example where things could change badly. - The 6th not being attempted would have delayed the invasion about a month at least which could have affected a number of things, even ignoring the impact of another month for Rommel to prepare defences.

[575]

Dale Cozort on his website elaborate on D-Day being defeated or postponed a forthnight due to weather. 

Trouble then is that the tide and full moon is then out of sync.

4 July or such would then be the date if full moon and tides are to fit as originally.

This have the added Western Allied advantage of some of the Panzer Divisions may have ended their rest from the Winter - Spring fighting and be back East as Op. Bagration take off 22 June - at least for obvious reasons that was the planned date - and the Germans have to keep some SS-Panzer Divs in the east. Also there will be no storms following the landing - thus both Mulberry ports operational and good flying weather for the go on Cherbourg!

Possble result - earlier breakout from the beachhead and victory?

[stevep]

Jun 25, 2024 12:54:28 GMT 575 said:

Dale Cozort on his website elaborate on D-Day being defeated or postponed a forthnight due to weather. 

Trouble then is that the tide and full moon is then out of sync.

4 July or such would then be the date if full moon and tides are to fit as originally.

This have the added Western Allied advantage of some of the Panzer Divisions may have ended their rest from the Winter - Spring fighting and be back East as Op. Bagration take off 22 June - at least for obvious reasons that was the planned date - and the Germans have to keep some SS-Panzer Divs in the east. Also there will be no storms following the landing - thus both Mulberry ports operational and good flying weather for the go on Cherbourg!

Possble result - earlier breakout from the beachhead and victory?

  Interesting thanks.  Wasn't sure what the weather was like a month later.  As you say some advantages to going a bit later, although you have less time to make use of it.  Some other things occur to me as well.

a)  I assume that the strategic bombers will continue to pound transport routes rather than going back to attacking cities and industrial targets.  Which will do more damage to the former but less to the latter.  It would probably reduce bomber losses somewhat as their hitting targets that are easier to strike and return from.

b)  IIRC I read that Eisenhower said that if the V1 had been produced 6 months earlier than the invasion would have been impossible.  How accurate that is I don't know, especially since the allies found ways to intercept it and between its inaccuracy and Hitler's determination to hit London it wasn't used against ports which could have been very nasty.  A single month might not have made a significant difference however.

c)  Possibly with a month's delay it might have been possible to have the southern landings made earlier so they go in at the same time as the northern ones, which I think was the original plan and would have stretched the Germans further.

[575]

Jun 25, 2024 15:38:32 GMT stevep said:

Jun 25, 2024 12:54:28 GMT 575 said:

Dale Cozort on his website elaborate on D-Day being defeated or postponed a forthnight due to weather. 

Trouble then is that the tide and full moon is then out of sync.

4 July or such would then be the date if full moon and tides are to fit as originally.

This have the added Western Allied advantage of some of the Panzer Divisions may have ended their rest from the Winter - Spring fighting and be back East as Op. Bagration take off 22 June - at least for obvious reasons that was the planned date - and the Germans have to keep some SS-Panzer Divs in the east. Also there will be no storms following the landing - thus both Mulberry ports operational and good flying weather for the go on Cherbourg!

Possble result - earlier breakout from the beachhead and victory?

  Interesting thanks.  Wasn't sure what the weather was like a month later.  As you say some advantages to going a bit later, although you have less time to make use of it.  Some other things occur to me as well.

a)  I assume that the strategic bombers will continue to pound transport routes rather than going back to attacking cities and industrial targets.  Which will do more damage to the former but less to the latter.  It would probably reduce bomber losses somewhat as their hitting targets that are easier to strike and return from.

b)  IIRC I read that Eisenhower said that if the V1 had been produced 6 months earlier than the invasion would have been impossible.  How accurate that is I don't know, especially since the allies found ways to intercept it and between its inaccuracy and Hitler's determination to hit London it wasn't used against ports which could have been very nasty.  A single month might not have made a significant difference however.

c)  Possibly with a month's delay it might have been possible to have the southern landings made earlier so they go in at the same time as the northern ones, which I think was the original plan and would have stretched the Germans further.

c) I'm not sure I understood that the landings in Southern France depended on movement of landing ships/boats and most importantly Transport Airgroups as such were always in chronich shortage and too badly trained from England to Italy. Though perhaps with another months production things would change and make both take off.

Another thing is that if Overlord is delayed a month the Allies in Italy will have the original forces for Operation Olive the assault on the Gothic Line might be more successfull and the French Mountain units was witheld for Dragoon.

[stevep]

Jun 25, 2024 18:03:01 GMT 575 said:

Jun 25, 2024 15:38:32 GMT stevep said:

  Interesting thanks.  Wasn't sure what the weather was like a month later.  As you say some advantages to going a bit later, although you have less time to make use of it.  Some other things occur to me as well.

a)  I assume that the strategic bombers will continue to pound transport routes rather than going back to attacking cities and industrial targets.  Which will do more damage to the former but less to the latter.  It would probably reduce bomber losses somewhat as their hitting targets that are easier to strike and return from.

b)  IIRC I read that Eisenhower said that if the V1 had been produced 6 months earlier than the invasion would have been impossible.  How accurate that is I don't know, especially since the allies found ways to intercept it and between its inaccuracy and Hitler's determination to hit London it wasn't used against ports which could have been very nasty.  A single month might not have made a significant difference however.

c)  Possibly with a month's delay it might have been possible to have the southern landings made earlier so they go in at the same time as the northern ones, which I think was the original plan and would have stretched the Germans further.

c) I'm not sure I understood that the landings in Southern France depended on movement of landing ships/boats and most importantly Transport Airgroups as such were always in chronich shortage and too badly trained from England to Italy. Though perhaps with another months production things would change and make both take off.

Another thing is that if Overlord is delayed a month the Allies in Italy will have the original forces for Operation Olive the assault on the Gothic Line might be more successfull and the French Mountain units was witheld for Dragoon.

  IIRC the initial plan was for simultaneous landings but this fell through because the USN swiped some of the planned shipping for the Pacific.  Thinking about it this probably couldn't be reversed in time for the two landings to go in on the same day even if the supreme command decided to reverse that movement of shipping or finding it from somewhere else.

[575]

Forging ahead - just one more to go..

***

Danish Radio series on Counterfactuals – Season 1 Episode 4, 23 June 2020

WI JFK wins the 1964 elections – would it lead to another 60's USA and better living conditions of the Afro-American population. Was the loss of JFK as such a tradegy?

Host Ph.D Adam Holm interview Ph.D Lecturer Niels Bjerre-Poulsen South Denmark University, researching US History and Politics who have written several works on US history among these on the Vietnam War 1945-75.
Poulsen find the premise of counter factual use in history is a natural to evaluate regarding persons what could have been done differently and why things were done. The case of no Kennedy assassin is a case to certainly look into as it seems ”peoples” find that the 60's would have been very different with Kennedy alive.

Initially Bjerre-Poulsen don't find JFK a great president but a bringer of expectations. Despite being heavily medicated due to his health condition he was seen as a young man the image of vitality.

War on poverty didn't move ahead. Racial equality – civil rights didn't go ahead due to his constituency's rejection of the initiatives.

WI JFK had been only wounded or otherwise had escaped the assassination would his running against Berry Goldwater 1964 have seen him getting reelected?
Goldwater found he had a fair chance of winning at least untill the assassination of JFK as JFK had serious troubles in the South. A Gallup poll September 63 had him lose in 11 southern states, Oklahoma and Kentucky though he might just have pulled it off though certainly without the landslide victory of Lyndon Johnson.

Getting the Civil Rights Act legislation through would have been a problem of Kennedy's. Another would be his lack of political exprience and ability for arm-wringing that Johnson excelled in.
The legacy of JFK was the lever for Johnson to work on to the ”Great Society” that then went on only to eventually being shot down on the battlefields of Vietnam.

With JFK living would the racial issue have been totally different?

Vietnam – would JFK have pulled out of Vietnam? He talked about it during 1962. At the time of his assassination there was 15,000 USArmy advisors in Vietnam which was to be pulled out.
Johnsons problem of 500,000 US combat troops in Vietnam was quite another problem.

JFK would oppose too great involvement in Vietnam – he wouldn't like to get a open limits political mandate on Vietnam though he did ok the removal of president Diem. OTOH he seemed to risk the loss of Vietnam due to US pull out but this isn't a certain – its conveniet post rationalization to conclude such.
JFK also seemed ready to normalize relations with Mao's China. Would he have been able to reach detente with the Soviets?
JFK had been a hawk regarding the loss of China to communism.

Johnson got the various Civil Righs act and other societal related legislation through by bowing out to right wing pressure regarding cold war and giving in to the communists. Posterity say JFK wouldn't have feared losing support by rejecting a hardline on Communism like in Vietnam – Bjerre-Poulsen isn't ready to accept this as with the pulling out of Vietnam. His political platform would have been lesser than Johnson's.

JFKs extra maritial affairs would have become a problem during his second term. And might have become a millstone round his political neck.

Another problem could have been Johnson's finances that was swept under the carpet due to the assassination of JFK; such may not happen if JFK still lives and Johnson not becoming VP 1964.

[575]

The last one!

***

Danish Radio series on Counterfactuals – Season 1 Episode 5, 23 June 2020 (the last one)

WI the Sovietunion goes on but Gorbatjov goes out 1991?

Host Ph.D Adam Holm interview Foreign News Editor of Weekendavisen (Conservative Weekend Newspaper) Anna Libak former newspaper correspondent in Moscow, masters degree of Russian Language and Social Studies. Trained as a language officer in the Danish Army (russian).
Libak find the premise of counter factual used on her field and specifically regarding Gorbatjov may reveal his actual role in events it he is removed from the equation. Quite close to Bjerre-Poulsen of episode 4.

Had the coup succeede would the Sovietunion persist?

The Soviet system was defunct – stagnated. Falling oil prices were part of the problem but even Gorbatjov couldn't remedy that. Gorbatjov kept a staunch belief in the communist system.

Boris Yeltsin is headhunted to Moscow as he knew agriculture which was also faltering. The idea was returning to a kind of NEP – new economic policy – such as letting agricultural collective sell part of its produce on the market. Which leads to black marketeering!

Then turning to Glasnost blew the lid off the pressurecooker with any and all bad stories coming out.

Economy focused on rawmaterials and military thus digging the grave deeper.

The hardliners and reformist's both critizised Gorbatjov for letting loose and not being loose enough.

Gorbatjov was generally liked within the Sovietunion but post the coup of 1991 he became hugely unpopular getting only ½ percent of votes against Yeltsin.

Russians see themselves as leaders of the World quite close to the American self-image!
Thus they ended up loathing Gorbatjov.

The driver to the coup was that a new union treaty – confederation - would give more ”Home rule” for the republics thus lessening the status of the Sovietunion. Even Yeltsin was basically against it.

The weak appearance of the coupmakers was their undoing – using an excuse of poor health of Gorbatjov doomed it.
Now what if they did it – had they had the will, brutality and unpredictability to carry through it might well have succeeded but would have required the reinclusion of the Baltics into the Sovietunion and no adverse reaction from NATO. The latter in the moment might have been so.
That may have resulted in a bloodbath within the Sovietunion.

Part of the problem of the coup was that the reforms had gone already too far. Military units rejected to go along the coup and the President of the major republic – Yeltsin – talked against the coup.

The coup could have succeeded with the use of force but would eventually have resulted in various republics rebelling in force.