<HTML>
<BODY>
Ok so here is the unedited messy sum of two separate email conversations.<br>
Richard is a WWII history buff so I quized him too. his extra thoughts are at the end.<br>
<br>
➢ Hi all,<br>
> I think I need to scrap the comment about the company being about 5x<br>
> bigger. Also don't forget to send in anything useful or ideas for the<br>
> new timeline:<br>
> Fearing an Allied super-weapon after 500 top scientists witnessed a 7.1<br>
> kiloton explosion inexplicably in the middle of a top secret Nazi base<br>
> (1942) the Nazi generals assasinate Hitler and surrender to preserve the<br>
> Fatherland (1943). An early end to WWII in Europe and North Africa. The<br>
> trick is the allies do not yet have such a weapon, it was sent by time<br>
> travellers.<br>
><br>
<br>
In chronological order. In early 1943 the Soviets broke the siege of<br>
Leningrad, won the battle of Stalingrad and captured the German 6th Army.<br>
At the same time the Poles began the Warsaw ghetto uprising.<br>
<br>
Also early in the year The White Rose non-violent/propaganda resistance<br>
group are captured in Germany and executed. It would make an interesting<br>
plot line to assume that they were incredibly successful instead. If you<br>
want to get you could somehow mix that in with Abbie Hoffman's synthesis<br>
of LSD at roughly the same time and end up with flower power defeating the<br>
Nazis.... OK, maybe not :)<br>
<br>
Shortly after this Afrika Korp surrended to the allies.<br>
<br>
So it would be in those circumstances that you could end up with a<br>
conservative, but not belligerent, fascist alliance in Germany, Vichy and<br>
Gaullist France, Salazar's Portugal, Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy<br>
etc. with Eastern Europe having strongly independent communist regimes in<br>
Poland, Czechoslavakia, Greece, etc probably as allies of Yugoslavia's<br>
Tito.<br>
<br>
So the Cold War doesn't quite happen as expected. The Soviet Union remains<br>
constrained by a group of very independent allies to their west, and<br>
beyond that conservative regimes, which would last at least until the<br>
1970s.<br>
<br>
➢ On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 14:34 -0700, Carl Brown wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> >So the Cold War doesn't quite happen as expected. The Soviet Union<br>
> remains<br>
> >constrained by a group of very independent allies to their west, and<br>
> >beyond that conservative regimes, which would last at least until the<br>
> >1970s.<br>
> <br>
> Without a strong Soviet does ascendency of the USA result? <br>
<br>
Not really. Just the Soviets don't really have Eastern Europe, the USA<br>
doesn't really have Western Europe; and although there would be no<br>
massive end-of-war destruction, likewise there would be no COMECON or<br>
Marshall Plan.<br>
<br>
> Any thoughts on asia anyone?<br>
<br>
Japan would surrender sooner as the US, UK, and ANZ would not have to<br>
fight to two fronts..<br>
<br>
> what does all this mean to the characters? Think about where you and<br>
> your ancestors are from. <br>
<br>
Note that the post-colonial independence movements would still happen<br>
*eventually*; they might take longer because the European powers aren't<br>
as trashed. Instead of 1950s and 60s more like 70s and 80s.<br>
<br>
> What about culture and technology?<br>
<br>
Interestingly I think Eastern Europe would more influential than Western<br>
Europe in this regard because of their stronger independence and mutual<br>
aid among each other.<br>
<br>
> How about Wehrner and his 500 odd followers seeking to escape cash<br>
> strapped Germany and pursue the moon still defect to the USA?<br>
<br>
Depends very much on Wehrner's personal politics were like....<br>
<br>
Also one other thing I completely neglected to mention which could be<br>
hugely influential - Franklin D. Roosevelt.<br>
<br>
FDR always said that once he'd gotten rid of Hitler and Mussolini, he'd<br>
deal with that "other fascist", being Franco (and presumably Salazar in<br>
Portgual). <br>
<br>
Either Franco and Salazar would reform (as suggested) or there very well<br>
may be a war between various western European countries and the United<br>
States!<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Krononauts mailing list<br>
Krononauts@mimesisrpg.com<br>
http://mimesisrpg.com/mailman/listinfo/krononauts_mimesisrpg.com<br>
.<br>
➢ Hi Karl and Liz,<br>
➢ <br>
➢ I have got your message(s) and have put on my thinking cap. Boy, you do come up with some doozies to exercise the grey matter! Some more context would be helpful.<br>
➢ <br>
➢ I am currently “in training” (ie plenty of toilet stops) for a colonoscopy tomorrow, so I have some other things on my mind (or bottom) at the moment.<br>
➢ <br>
➢ Off the cuff, I would say that there is very little that the Nazi hierarchy or their armed forces could do. The invasion of Russia was not going well (eg unexpected Russian resistance at Stalingrad and Leningrad and the impending loss of Von Paulus’s 6th Army). North Africa was in a similar condition (Rommel was about to be chucked out of Africa after El Alamein and the Allies were about to invade North Africa). UK Bomber Command and the USAAF 8th Air Force were working up to the bomber offensive commencing in early 1943. The Japanese were no help after the defeats in PNG and the Solomons and the Battles of the Coral Sea and Midway. And the Italians were useless.<br>
➢ <br>
➢ Although the Nazi’s were working on “super weapons” they had not progressed. Their nuclear ambitions were stalled by the escape or the unwise elimination of a lot of their best scientists and the destruction of the heavy water plant at Telermark in occupied Norway. Their other rocket/missile research was limited and largely confined to the now destroyed Peenemunde, and had produced no real powerful guided weapons.<br>
➢ <br>
➢ Therefore, as a first guess I would say that there would be only a limited effect on the war. The allies would still need to invade both from the east and the west. The effect on German morale would be more difficult to guess but I would say that there could be some sort of coup by the Generals and /or a civil uprising (a la 1918) that shortens the war maybe to late 1944.<br>
➢ <br>
➢ Your thoughts are about right – but the timing is the thing. I still think they would have battled through till about 1943-44 especially after the successes of D-Day and the effect of the bomber offensive. To my knowledge the Nazi’s had little or no knowledge of any Allied super weapon (although post war intelligence revealed that the Russians knew at the Potsdam Conference and feigned ignorance at Truman’s “shock” announcement).<br>
➢ <br>
➢ The interesting part of your question is the future effect of the mystery explosion. The scientists escaped so that was a plus. The hardware did not so that would be a setback (you would be aware that the V2 was the basis fore the development of the US Viking rocket that led directly to the successful NASA and ICBM vehicles like Atlas and Saturn). I’m not sure about the effect on the development of guidance systems.<br>
➢ <br>
➢ In conclusion, in the short to medium term little would have changed except timing. I think that the US and Russia would still have plugged on to the Cold War – each suspecting the other as being the perpetrator of the mysterious explosion, and therefore embarking on the Arms Race. Science would have progressed – I cannot see the developments of the space race, pharmaceuticals, electronics, aviation, etc etc being any different. International relations may have been different - the east always having the suspicion that the west had a super weapon up its sleeve and vice versa. Maybe this would have be a catalyst for word peace.<br>
➢ <br>
➢ This is a bit garbled but is a first attempt. If I have any other bright thoughts I will let you know. I would be interested in seeing the emails from the group.<br>
➢ <br>
➢ Regards<br>
➢ <br>
➢ Richard <br>
➢ <br>
➢ <br>
➢ <br>
➢ <br>
➢ <br>
➢ From: Karl David Brown [mailto:brownk@unimelb.edu.au] <br>
Sent: Saturday, 24 July 2010 1:24 PM<br>
To: Elizabeth Anne Bowman<br>
Cc: rbowman@grapevine.net.au<br>
Subject: RE: Your expertise could be helpful FW: Dad's Email<br>
➢ <br>
➢ Anyway the time travel is not important here. What is important is that the Nazi's have concrete evidence of what they think is an unstoppable allied super-weapon from mid-1942 on. what do they do? how is the world changed?<br>
<br>
not her fault? hmmm, two paleontologists called Dr Neill Edwards (Aka Liz) knew the explosion was going to happen, had access to a time machine and still failed to stop the bad guy's (my) evil plan twice. Gross incompetence I'd say.<br>
;)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Elizabeth Anne Bowman [mailto:eabowman@unimelb.edu.au]<br>
Sent: Fri 23/07/2010 18:31<br>
To: Karl David Brown<br>
Cc: rbowman@grapevine.net.au; Liz Bowman<br>
Subject: Re: Your expertise could be helpful FW: Dad's Email<br>
<br>
This is what I do on my weekends, try to prevent Werner von Braun from<br>
getting vaporised at inopportune historical moments. I hasten to add that<br>
(this time) the enormous explosion wasn't my character's fault....<br>
<br>
Let us know, Dad, if you need more context. Karl's trying to build an<br>
alternate timeline, when the Nazi scientists get the crap scared out of<br>
them in 1942.<br>
<br>
Liz<br>
<br>
> Hi R&R<br>
> I wondered if Richard would give me a hand here. Recently some idiot time<br>
> traveller set off a 7.1 kiloton fuel-air explosive in mid-1942. The bomb<br>
> appeared out of nowhere then exploded 3 seconds later. This thing looks<br>
> like a nuke but leaves no radiation.The explosive destroyed the Peenemunde<br>
> base where they developed the V2. Most of the scientists escaped and<br>
> witnessed the event from a distance.<br>
> What would be the likely repercussions in the years and decades that<br>
> followed? (I have to build a rough timeline to 2095AD)<br>
> My first take on this event is that the Nazi's feared an allied super<br>
> weapon. The Generals could then assassinate Hitler and surrender to save<br>
the<br>
> Fatherland. Is this about right?<br>
> Any thoughts?<br>
> Would you like to be included in the emails within our group on this<br>
> particular subject?<br>
><br>
> p.s. Hi Rose<br>
><br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Elizabeth Anne Bowman [mailto:eabowman@unimelb.edu.au]<br>
> Sent: Fri 23/07/2010 12:07<br>
> To: Karl David Brown<br>
> Subject: Dad's Email<br>
><br>
> rbowman@grapevine.net.au<br>
><br>
> Technically, that is Mum and Dad's email. I'm not sure who usually gets<br>
> to it first.<br>
> CC me into the conversation too.<br>
><br>
➢ Hi to you both,<br>
➢ <br>
➢ In answer (briefly) to your questions.<br>
➢ <br>
➢ Firstly, I think by 1943 and 1944 most of the physical “damage” to England had already been done. The blitz was finished (except for the odd nuisance bomber), the far east had been well and truly lost years before (eg Singapore, Hong Kong, Mandalay and the Sumatran oil fields), major naval losses had already occurred (eg HMS’s Hood, Prince of Wales, Repulse, Ark Royal, Royal Oak etc etc). However there were still losses to be borne (eg Bomber Command personnel, Civilian damage from V1’s and later V2’s, continuing Atlantic convoy sinkings). So in essence I don’t think England would have been “a lot” less damaged.<br>
➢ <br>
➢ Secondly, England would have financially benefited from an earlier end to the war. But it would be difficult to guesstimate by how much. In 1943-44 the economy was in bad shape, rationing took years to end and it took a number of years to repair civilian/industrial damage and swing the economy over to a peace time footing. Most of the savings would have been a reduction in “capital costs” (probably limited need to repair the VI and 2 damage, reduction or cancellation of the late war time naval building program (eg HMS’s Vanguard, Implacable, Indefatigable and the “Tiger” class cruisers). However, there would have been a continuing need to finance the reconstruction program, the occupation forces, veterans/widows/orphans support funds and to repay the USA for loans incurred during the earlier stages of the war and under the Lend/Lease program.<br>
➢ <br>
➢ In the latter case it is not very well known that the yanks were very tough and insisted on full payment of principle and interest. If I remember correctly the UK only settled its WWII sovereign debt to the US in the last five or so years. To my knowledge the US Marshall Plan was of no use to the UK as it was only tailored to rebuild war ravaged Europe.<br>
➢ <br>
➢ I like the potential unscrambling tactic, but I would not be confident of its long term success. It smacks somewhat of a chicken as well as an egg. Good luck!<br>
➢ <br>
➢ Regards<br>
➢ <br>
➢ Richard <br>
➢ Hi,<br>
➢ <br>
➢ I forgot to say, don’t forget the war in the Far East. The UK had made a definite political decision that it was not going to surrender its pre war importance in that region. Hence the creation of the “British Pacific Fleet” (which the US hated as it interfered with its strategy to increase its influence in the Far East), and the RAF’s “Tiger Force” designed to join the USAAF in the bombing of Japan (a strategy which in end did not occur). <br>
➢ <br>
➢ In 1943-44 the Japanese were still fighting and showed no signs of surrender. The UK therefore, mostly for political reasons, would have continued to fight on in Burma, reinforcing its forces there and possibly in the Pacific to join the US (and of course Australia) in the island hopping military campaign to ultimately invade Japan.<br>
➢ <br>
➢ This redirection to the Pacific of course would have had financial repercussions to the British, and maybe nullify any “savings” incurred in an early end to the war in Europe.<br>
➢ <br>
➢ Regards (again)<br>
➢ <br>
➢ Richard <br>
<br>
<br>
</BODY></HTML>
<p><p>Care2 makes it easy for everyone to live a healthy, green lifestyle
and impact the causes you care about most. Over 12 Million members!
<a href="http://www.care2.com" target=_blank>http://www.care2.com</a><br /><br />
Feed a child by searching the web! Learn how <a href="http://www.care2.com/toolbar" target=_blank>http://www.care2.com/toolbar<a>