Re: LOTR and 20th Century Western European Prejudices

"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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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).

> 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.

> > 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.

> 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.

> 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 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.

> 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.

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

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan