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]>...
> >
> > I think that the Soviets could possibly have achieved a stalemate
without
> > American involvement. Up to and including the time that the Soviets
turned
> > the tide (Stalingrad), US and UK lend-lease had not yet had a
significant
> > effect on the Soviet fighting effort. It would have been very close.
>
> I actually think that without American involvement, the German part of
> World War II is totally decided on the Eastern Front with the likeliest
> outcomes being either a stalemate or a Russian partial victory
> (Russians retake their country and part of Eastern Europe, but run out
> of resources before being able to conquer any part of Germany save for
> Eastern Prussia).
>
> Remember that absent the Lend-Lease aid the Germans probably do better
> at the hypothetical equivalents of Stalingrad and Kursk  Absent a large
truck fleet, the
> Russians can't pull off the surprise attack that won Stalingrad and
> doomed the German 6th Army; absent the huge logistical support the
> Lend-Lease shipments were giving Russia, the Germans might very well
> have broken the main Russian army at the Kursk-equivalent.
>
> In OTL, the Soviet army was near exhaustion at the point of victory in
> April 1945. In the ATL, this means that the exhaustion point would
> come earlier, probably around mid to late 1944.
>
> The Soviets reaching exhaustion doesn't necessarily mean that the Axis
> win, of course. What it means is that the Soviets might be amenable at
> that point to a truce or even peace treaty, which might be a more
> favorable outcome for the Nazi regime than the total defeat of OTL.
>
> This treaty might actually be honored, because once the Soviets pull
> out, with no American involvement Britain and the Commonwealth are
> under immense pressure to pull out as well. This might involve the
> Germans pulling out of Occupied France, or it might involve the
> British accepting the humiliating reality of defeat in the West.
>



Agreed. Excellent post. Thanks for the response. I've snipped a little, but
tried to convey the meaning.

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. 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.

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.


> If neither America nor Britain are still at war with Germany, then the
> Germans are free to import material from overseas -- and to sell
> material from their empire for hard currency. The infusion of cheap
> material, coupled with a German industry NOT subjected to
> round-the-clock strategic bombardment, give Germany the resources to
> build an army capable of holding the Soviets to whatever line was
> agreed on -- possibly, even one strong enough to resume the war at a
> later date resulting in a German ultimate victory.


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.


>
> Among Great Powers, Britain is the big loser here. Britain has still
> exhausted herself, and has nothing to show for it. She loses her
> empire and declines into an _inglorious_, rather than glorious,
> second-class status.


I believe this is a very interesting point. Though Britain lost her
superpower status as a result of the actual war, it is clear that American
involvement in the actual war, if it didn't actually save England from
extinction (which it probably did), most certainly allowed her a much more
prominent role in the post-war world, though with America as the new
superpower. At least the English are grateful (more or less), unlike the
French.


>
> Soviet Russia hasn't done so well: she's exhausted herself in a
> colossal bloody war with _nothing_ to show for it, except possibly the
> Baltic States, Bessarabia, and part of Poland.
>


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.


> 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), and, not having been bombed, prospers quickly as a united Europe.
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). As Europeans become accustomed to Fascist
lifestyle, it is, in my opinion, likely that a Big Brother Totalitarian
State would evolve.


> 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.


> Vichy France survives, and probably regains control of her northern
> territories (minus, of course, Alsace-Lorraine) in the final peace
> settlement. The French Empire is doomed. But this isn't _that_ much
> worse than what happened to her in OTL, after all.
>


See above. France survives in name only, and remains a part of the Third
Reich.


> 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. 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.
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'm not sure who first develops the bomb, or when, and under what
> circumstances it is probably used. America, Britain, and Germany are
> the likeliest candidates.
>

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.

>
> > C. The French would have even less reason to be ungrateful to the US.
>
> Heh, yes they could instead be ungrateful to the Soviets -- and
> regarding _them_, they'd have a point.
>
> (The moment of true comedy would come when Stalin shot all the French
> Communist intellectuals, who in OTL sung his praises, for
> "deviationism.")


Indeed. Vaguely amusing.


>
> > But I agree that the USSR would still have had a reasonably likely (not
> > certain) chance of defeating Germany without the invasion of Europe. The
> > Allies did the smart thing, of course. It was in their best interest to
> > allow the Germans and Soviets to kill as many of each other as possible,
> > then to move in at the end and grab as much of western Europe as
possible.
> > Nothing wrong with that.
>
> Yes. And plus, we really weren't ready to invade France until 1944.
>


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).

Selah