Re: LOTR and 20th Century Western European Prejudices

"Jordan179" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "MasterDebater" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > "Jordan179" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > With no American involvement in Europe during World War Two I believe it
is
> > likely that Britain has not survived, as she would lack a sufficient
> > Atlantic pipeline.
>
> That's true. Though the Royal Navy could still win the Battle of the
> Atlantic (by weakening the Mediterranean forces, with all that
> implies), the problem is that the British don't have the cash to pay
> for supplies from a truly neutral America. As it was, the cost of WWII
> bankrupted the British Empire: with less favorable purchasing terms,
> Britain can import far less materiel from America.
>


Let us pretend that, for whatever reason (hypothetically: Stricter
Isolationism, different leadership, overly strict export laws, whatever),
America sent no supplies whatsoever under any circumstances whatsoever to
Britain or anyone else in the European theatre of Operations. No supplies,
no Liberty Ships, no arms, no equipment, no troops. Nothing. And no American
aid through Canada or the Middle-East, either. No American assistance to
Britain or anyone else in any way in the European theatre during WWII. Let
us suppose that for whatever reasons America will not hinder and or all Nazi
Naval actions in the Atlantic, and that America makes no attempts whatsoever
to project power in any way into Europe.

Britain would quickly run out of money and merchant ships. An eventual Nazi
U-boat blockade would force her to starve and surrender.

Britain would not have survived WWII without American assistance.


> > It is also highly likely that, even if Britain survives
> > in some minimal sense, she would be unable to mount any more than a
token
> > bombing campaign on Germany, who would be quite strong and able to
exploit
> > the resources of occupied Europe, especially without any Mediterranean
> > hassles.
>
> Right. And, contrary to the opinions of Wells and Stapledon (_Things
> to Come_ and _Last and First Men_), such a small bombing campaign
> would be unlikely to even seriously disrupt life in Germany. With the
> result (as one other person pointed out to me) that Germany could use
> a lot of guns, planes, and men that in OTL were part of their air
> defense system directly on the Eastern Front. This would include large
> numbers of the excellent dual-purpose 88mm flak pieces, and smaller
> but more rapid-firing weapons which would be of great value for direct
> infantry support.
>


Yes. As you (or I) pointed out before, an increase of 25% for infantry and
tanks, probably double the Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front and more than
double the Artillery (from AA guns). Germany and Soviet Russia grind to a
stalemate. The Third Reich survives. Britain does not. Good thing America
entered the European theatre!


> > I see no reason for French liberation to be included in any truce
resulting
> > from a Nazi/Soviet stalemate. France would remain France only in so much
as
> > it remains populated by Frenchmen, but all conquered German territory
would
> > remain as part of the Third Reich.
>
> Hmm, you have a point there, especially as Nazi racialist theories
> would consider Northern Frenchmen to be more "German" than Southern
> Frenchmen (Normano-Frankish as opposed to Celto-Roman influence). I
> was assuming that the return of most of Occupied France was used by
> the Reich as a carrot to gain greater support from Vichy France, but
> then again the Third Reich was more into sticks than carrots anyway.
>


Yes, I believe it is unlikely that France would remain France, but merely an
area of The Third Reich inhabited by Frenchmen.


> > I believe it is likely that Germany would do just that - build up fast,
just
> > as Hitler had done before, develop new weapons, including, eventually,
Atom
> > Bombs, and then attack the USSR again. But I think the results would
> > eventually be another stalemate since the Soviets have also had time to
> > recuperate and improve their weapons. Considering Hitler's track record,
> > then if the Germans develop Atom Bombs before the USSR, then God help
the
> > Soviets.
>
> One rather grim possibility is that _both_ Nazi Germany and the Soviet
> Union develop atom bombs _and_ strategic delivery systems (such as the
> heavy bombers that Germany didn't build in OTL), and after a period of
> truce proceed to nuke the hell out of each other in a mid-to-late
> 1950's World War III. The one silver lining in this cloud is that
> America would probably be able to stay neutral and pick up the pieces
> after the (literal, and radioactive) dust settled. Such a war would
> easily kill a hundred to two hundred million people, if not more,
> especially conducted with Nazi-Soviet mutual ruthlessness (which would
> obviously make a "countervalue" strategy likeliest).
>


You make good points. Considering the ruthlessness with which the Germans
and Soviets fought each other on the Eastern Front during WWII, I believe
that it may be quite possible, in the above scenario, that both The Third
Reich and the Soviet Union would nuke each other to such a degree of Atomic
Annihilation that neither would be very powerful for a very long time.
America would rule that post-apocalyptic nightmare. Thank God that our
involvement in the European theatre in WWII avoided this horror for the
whole world.


> > I see the USSR becoming, roughly, the same superpower she became in the
> > actual cold war. Though her European holdings would be significantly
less, a
> > Nazi/Soviet stalemate in WWII would allow the USSR to recuperate and
defend.
> > Some Soviet spymaster like Pavel Sudoplatov would, undoubtedly, steal
the
> > American Atom Bomb plans earlier than as actually happened, due to the
> > extreme need for Soviet Russia to be able to defend herself from a
Germany
> > who is clearly trying to develop the Bomb. The Soviets would recuperate,
> > just as they did in the actual timeline. Cold-war style Nuclear detente
> > would result, but *this* time it would be between *three* roughly equal
> > superpowers - America, The Third Reich, and the USSR. And as the late
Frank
> > Herbert observed, a tripod is the least stable of all political
structures.
>
> I think that American neutrality is likely. Sadly, if we don't remain
> neutral, we're likeliest to side with the Nazis against the
> Communists, because of:
>
> 1) American business interests, and
>
> 2) Non-awareness of the Holocaust.
>


Hard to say what might happen. News of the Holocaust would get out and be
ruthlessly put down within Nazi dominated Europe, but the world might
eventually discover the truth. Or there might simply be many conflicting
stories, never substantiated, and we might actually become more or less
buddy-buddy with the Third Reich. Ugh, but we've had other undesirable
alliances and associations. Countries act in their best interest.


> > > Nazi Germany has survived and gotten to keep at least some of her
> > > conquests. She is the dominant power in Europe. She's also, by the
> > > way, probably succeeded in exterminating European Jewry.
> >
> > Agreed. The Third Reich clearly wins World War Two in this scenario, as
she
> > survives, intact, with most of her European gains (including, most
likely,
> > the UK),
>
> I don't think she would be able to _conquer_ the UK (because she is
> still spending most of her effort on the Eastern Front), but she would
> probably be able to force Britain to sue for peace on terms.
> Historically, Hitler was quite willing to accept a negotiated peace
> with Britain, so the Third Reich probably accepts the offer.
>
> The terms probably include the loss of at least some of the
> Mediterranean part of the British Empire. Maybe the British get to
> keep Egypt and the Suez Canal. Probably not Gibraltar, which is
> valuable as a prize to tempt Spain into full membership in the Axis.
>


I think that the UK probably loses all ofits Mediterranean holdings by
actual fighting during the war. Britian can't supply herself and fight at
the same time. Once the British Isles run out of money and merchant ships
and get totally blockeded for years, she would lose Egypt and Gibralter
would get invaded.

It is likely that, due to political and economic pressures, Britain will be
force to pursue very close military ties to The Third Reich. Due to the
total blockade, she would likely be forced to divest herself of *all*
military equipment and become a non-invaded but nominal member of the Third
Reich.


> > and, not having been bombed, prospers quickly as a united Europe.
>
> Right.
>
> > Much of Europe would, I believe, quickly come to see the benefits of
> > Fascism, and would, despite the heinous things that the Nazis did (which
> > would come to light but be dealt with by the iron grip of the Gestapo),
> > eventually come to forget the horrors of the war as they begin to see
the
> > prosperity which would eventually follow (history has proven many, many
> > times that prospering survivors can overlook and forget much evil which
was
> > done against their neighbors).
>
> For instance, as Western Europe forgot the evil deeds of the Soviet
> Union in OTL.
>


So many examples of this in history. Much of the expansion of the Roman
Empire followed this idea. Horror forgotten due to subsequent prosperity.


> > As Europeans become accustomed to Fascist
> > lifestyle, it is, in my opinion, likely that a Big Brother Totalitarian
> > State would evolve.
>
> Probably in Britain, too, as democracy has been discredited by defeat.
> I think that America would remain free, since we probably won _our_
> war (against Japan).
>
> > > Fascist Italy has survived, but probably lost Ethiopia for good. She
> > > may have kept some Balkan conquests to compensate, though.
> >
> > Agreed. In the actual war, Mussolini was rather quickly forced to face
the
> > fact that, contrary to his former belief in himself and his revived
Roman
> > Empire, he and Italy were very much the *junior* partners in the
European
> > Axis. In our hypothetical here, with no American European involvement,
Italy
> > would still experienced those events (North Africa, Greece, etc.) which
> > forced her to accept her supporting role to Germany.
>
> Right. And in OTL German help _did_ enable Italy to win in the Balkans
> -- the Italians just lost all their gains as the result of the Allies
> forcing their surrender.
>
> > > I'm not sure about American, Japan, and China. It's probable that
> > > Japan attacks America and gets thoroughly beaten, possibly by 1944 as
> > > America does not have the major distraction of a European War.
> >
> > Agreed. Japan would still attack since events in the Pacific are not
> > affected by our assumption of no American involvement in Europe. Japan
loses
> > more quickly, but I think that the Manhattan Project, already underway,
> > would be completed, because America understands that a post-war power
with
> > no Bomb is no post-war power at all.
>
> ... and the German threat is _much_ greater than in OTL.
>
> > America still develops the world's
> > largest navy due to Pacific involvement, though Air Force developments
are
> > not as clear in this hypothetical, though, no doubt, the US Air Force
would
> > probably reach actual timeline levels during the post-war period, due to
the
> > Cold War and continued Pacific involvement (Korea and Vietnam as per the
> > real timeline). America would still have her immense industry, though
her
> > actual power and prestige in the hypothetical post-war would most likely
be
> > less than in the actual timeline, due to her non-involvement in Europe.
>
> Right. Though note we didn't _lose_ ... we just didn't join that
> particular fight.
>


America would still liberate a great number of places and peoples in the
Pacific theatre, but, unlike the other victors (USSR and Third Reich in
Europe) we would give back all of those lands and places to the rightful
owners, as we did in the actual timeline. We understood that Colonialism was
dead, and that our new-found status of dominant superpower was no longer
dependent on the acquisition and holding of large portions of the world.


> > America is still a superpower, but not the all-powerful superpower of
the
> > actual timeline. She may still win the Cold War against the USSR, but I
> > can't say whether she could would enjoy a similar victory against The
Third
> > Reich.
>
> I think that if America can stay neutral, Germany and Russia take each
> other out. A Nazi-Soviet Pact against America is improbable due to the
> extreme hatred the Germans and Russians have for each other following
> Barbarossa -- a hatred shared by their national _leaderships_.
>
> > In my opinion, a post-war Cold War involving a Nuclear superpower tripod
of
> > America, The Third Reich, and the USSR results in a highly unstable
post-war
> > detente. In the real timeline, the Cuban Missile Crisis almost resulted
in
> > Nuclear war. In our unstable hypothetical timeline, it is likely that a
> > lesser crisis will sooner result in actual world-wide Nuclear War and
World
> > War Three. I roughly estimate 500 million dead. Germany and Russia will
nuke
> > the shit out of each other. America takes high casualties as well but
> > dominates the post-apocalyptic world. Hurrah.
>
> Indeed ... it's a high human price to pay for what amounts to the same
> relative outcome as in OTL. America dominates today's world anyway,
> and the butcher's bill was much smaller.
>


Good thing we joined the fight in the European theatre. Britain survived in
the real timeline and The Third Reich was put down.


> > Agreed.  Though some of our leaders and most of our Generals wanted to
get
> > into the conflict on mainland Europe as quickly as possible, I believe
that
> > the actual events transpired as a result, not of the desires or actions
of
> > any one particular American or Allied person or group, but merely a
result
> > of the way in which the wheels of American political and economic
mechanisms
> > instinctively ground through the raw events of that time. The Military
and
> > the Executive and Congressional branches of  American government
balanced
> > admirably to allow America, almost unconsciously, to *enter* the war at
just
> > the right time, to *invade* Europe at just the right time, to *end* the
> > Pacific war at just the right time so as to allow America to come
through
> > the war relatively unscathed and with such a huge increase in military,
> > political, and economic power that she became the dominant post-war
> > superpower (for which the world understandably hates us).
>
> What's interesting is that Europe, in particular, thinks that this
> happened by _accident_, rather than through systematic superiority.
>


It was America's time. Our time to become the dominant superpower. Britain's
time was over. Evolution.


> Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it -- as
> I think a lot of Europe is demonstrating right now.
>

I fear for present-day Europe. I hope that they succeed in unifying totally,
even though such an entity would threaten America's dominant status. But I
fear that Europe may one day have another of those horrible wars which seem
to break out every so often. But perhaps my fear is ill-founded. Those prior
European wars broke out because one European power or another was either a
dominant world superpower or was trying to become one. But none of those
European powers, today, can be considered a superpower, and so it is time
that they unite. Together, they may be able to cause some trouble.