Idea: WW2.5 in the 1960's

Narki

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Just an idea that struck me...

What if the Second World War ended in a stalemate and the combatting sides were forced to end the war in a bitter peace, deviding Europe into three armed camps of fascists, communists and democracies, after which there'd be twenty years of re-construction and verious proxy wars abroad ahead? Then in the 60's things would boil over again with the three sides fighting eachother in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia, and that's where the scenario would start.

Just an idea I had, any one with more experience willing to work on it?
 

viridomaros

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
1,565
Reaction score
1
Location
liege
Country
llBelgium
Narki said:
Just an idea that struck me...

What if the Second World War ended in a stalemate and the combatting sides were forced to end the war in a bitter peace, deviding Europe into three armed camps of fascists, communists and democracies, after which there'd be twenty years of re-construction and verious proxy wars abroad ahead? Then in the 60's things would boil over again with the three sides fighting eachother in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia, and that's where the scenario would start.

Just an idea I had, any one with more experience willing to work on it?
well toaw works well with two sides
not sure it can work with 3 if you see what i mean
otherwise could be a good fictional scenario :cool:
 

Narki

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Heh, might've described further.

The communists and democracies would be one side, and the fascists and their allies another. I just said that there'd be three camps because let's face it, communism and the free-market economies and their liberal/conservative agenda simply doesn't go well with the communist line of the USSR and its friends. There'd most likely be conflicts between the capitalists and communists in the inter-war years.

To simulate the fact that the East and West aren't precisely allies would be preventing them from fighting together (ie no British units fighting on Soviet soil, nor any Soviet or Chinese units fighting in France against the Germans.
 

Double Deuce

Forum Conscript
Joined
Dec 15, 2002
Messages
4,718
Reaction score
69
Location
Crossville, TN
Country
llUnited States
Narki said:
To simulate the fact that the East and West aren't precisely allies would be preventing them from fighting together (ie no British units fighting on Soviet soil, nor any Soviet or Chinese units fighting in France against the Germans.
Couldn't you have 2 "Allied" players moving only their units with one ending the Allied Turn? They could alternate who has the honors each turn?
 

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
Narki said:
Just an idea that struck me...

What if the Second World War ended in a stalemate and the combatting sides were forced to end the war in a bitter peace, deviding Europe into three armed camps of fascists, communists and democracies, after which there'd be twenty years of re-construction and verious proxy wars abroad ahead? Then in the 60's things would boil over again with the three sides fighting eachother in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia, and that's where the scenario would start.
A number of problems;
a) how would this happen? Hitler was never really keen on the idea of allowing Russia to exist as an independent state.
b) You're going to have to do a lot of fudging to come up with the equipment inventories for the Axis in particular but also probably for the other powers. I suspect the place to start for the Germans would be the set of standardised armoured vehicles which was devised at the end of the war.
c) The power of the United States and the Soviet Union versus that of Central Europe is going to increase dramatically over those twenty years.
 

Dicke Bertha

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
1,567
Reaction score
0
Location
Stockholm
Country
llSweden
a) not really important as something would simply be assumed for fun.
b) how much really is equipment and how much is inherent to the character of a nation's soldiery? Would WW2 have looked entirely different if the sides had switched equipment with each other? My take on this is that it is also secondary.
c) ah interesting. How can we know this? If Germany would somehow have survived 1945, then wouldn't that imply that they'd have come up with something devious? If Germany had Me-262's controling the air space, oil (Rumania) for its army and industry production (trucks and tanks) increasing in the tangential direction (of 1944), they'd have a long way to go before hitting the ceiling? Is the same true for the US and Soviet Union?

I think it is a great idea, and if a set of thetre options could be constructed (isn't it really just linear algebra provided the correct equations/TO's could be defined) for the players to chose before the real action begins, wouldn't it be just great? Or am I overdosing my happypills again?

Ben, you see I am interested in the idea, without the skills to know what I am talking about :)
 

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
Dicke Bertha said:
a) not really important as something would simply be assumed for fun.
No, no, no! Has to be historically believable. Otherwise what's the point?

b) how much really is equipment and how much is inherent to the character of a nation's soldiery?
... this is TOAW. Units are built up from individual peices of equipment. Therefore we have to know what equipment is being used before we can make the units.

Anyway, there's some pretty detailed information available on the Achtung Panzer site about the standardised panzer designs. It would be fairly easy to put together an equipment set for these. Though these would be more appropriate for the 1950s than the 1960s.

c) ah interesting. How can we know this? If Germany would somehow have survived 1945, then wouldn't that imply that they'd have come up with something devious?
There are still only 80-90 million Germans. Just not enough of the buggers.

If Germany had Me-262's controling the air space,
Compare the stats of a Me-262 to those for 1960s jets. The Me-262 will be obsolete and being sold off to South American air forces by the time we're talking about. German research and design efforts were never very focussed- it's far from certain that Germany will have a technical edge in this field come the 1960s.

This raises another point- what about the atomic bomb?
 

Amyrlin

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
re the atomic bomb, it would probably be better to assume that it was never developed, in the interests of simplicity.

There are several scenarios in which the Soviet Union and Germany might have fought each other to a stalemate, or in which Stalin may have sued for peace... for example, if the Germans had at some point mobilized the Byelorussians for troops, that might have provided the edge required to fend off the Red Army - from what I understand the Byelorussians were actually quite eager to be rid of the Soviets, but because of Hitler's Aryan racial superiority policy their potential as a fighting force was never really tapped. Another scenario (more hypothetical) is to say that Germany never declared war on the United States - this would have been in response to Japan's polite refusal to go to war with the Soviet Union in 1941 despite the Tripartite Pact. A third scenario is to assume that Germany somehow won the Battle of Britain and approached the British with a deal: conclude peace or face an overwhelming invasion - it's my understanding that Hitler didn't particularly want to fight the British as he saw them as fellow "Aryans".

A big question is if the Soviet Union would have survived a draw in the war - would popular support for the regime have dipped so low as to incite another Russian Revolution? If this was the case, wouldn't Hitler have taken the opportunity to invade yet again and finish the job?
 

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
Amyrlin said:
re the atomic bomb, it would probably be better to assume that it was never developed, in the interests of simplicity.
I suppose one can do that, one way or another. The scientists at the time of the first test were still not entirely sure if they would get a useable weapon out of the process.

There are several scenarios in which the Soviet Union and Germany might have fought each other to a stalemate,
I remain unconvinced. When was the last time any land war ended in a stalemate?

or in which Stalin may have sued for peace...
OK- Hitler grudgingly agrees to let Stalin keep everything East of the Urals. The only way you're going to get Nazi Germany and a viable Russia co-existing after the war is if you remove Hitler- but then it's hardly Nazi Germany any more.

for example, if the Germans had at some point mobilized the Byelorussians for troops, that might have provided the edge required to fend off the Red Army
For this to work, the Germans would have had to be much more benevolent occupiers. If they were that, again it presupposes Hitler is gone, but also Russia would very likely collapse in 1942. Hard to unify the country under Stalin without the threat of national extinction.

A third scenario is to assume that Germany somehow won the Battle of Britain and approached the British with a deal:
It's more believable to suppose that Halifax became Prime Minister in May 1940 and sued for peace at the same time as France did.
 

piero1971

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
739
Reaction score
0
Location
geneva
Country
llSwitzerland
what you can imagine is as follows:

1941. Germany reaches and occupies Moscow (in late summer).
Japan attacks Soviet Union and not the USA.OR.Japan attacks the USA but Germany does not DoW on the USA.
1942, Soviet union collapses, Germany occupies Russia up to the urals and fights bitter guerilla war while it starts to colonise Russia. Germany gets Caucasus Oil
1943, Germany offers peace to Britain, with mediation of the USA.

so then most of europe is Fascist (including France and Nordics - yes Sweden too???).
Germany rules an inefficient, corrupt yet, technologically advanced europe, that has a guerilla war east that consumes much resources (to the Fuhrer's delight to have a new generation of german youth "carved from the fire" in the East.).

eventually you have one side with USA/Britain/Russia guerilla and one with German europe + ?japan.

tough for the USA/Britain !!
 

piero1971

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
739
Reaction score
0
Location
geneva
Country
llSwitzerland
equipment

as far as equipment of Germany in the 1950's or 1960's in this what if scenario

one has to look at a few things.

- Infantry and artillery.

Germany would have learned much from the East front and probably adopted some of the efficient soviet style artillery. so expect german motorized nebelwerfers to have evolved a lot and be present at army, corps and perhaps divisional level

infantry would probably have developed flack jackets, even more powerfull AT panzerschreks and panzerfaults, and widespread use of Stug-44 and improoved MG42. Officers would be back at the 2yr school and now with benefiting of widespread combat experienced NCO and officers. Germany would have the best infantry in the world.

- Armour, tank, APC

Germany would probably expant its' APC (I think the sdkfz224 would sill be around in a better version, but in TOAW terms it is as good as a M113 anyways) but more of them.
Heavy tanks would be te Maus or something close to sovier JSIII tanks. MBT would probably be an evolution of the Panther, perhaps closer to french 1960's tanks or T-54 type tanks.
But production would be slow and inefficent as Nazi system was corrupt and "fat".

- Aircraft
that's the easy part - take any soviet plane of the 50s and 60s make it available 5 to 10 years earlier and you get german designs planned for the 50's. you may also add some real fantasy and modern planes to it. a German B-29 would also be there.

- Nukes.
well, yes, with no war to fight, Germany could easyly harness the resources to research and manufacture nukes. perhaps not the same model than "little boy" or "fat man" but clearly some mini-nuke. which is even worse considering Germany delivery means..

- Rockets.
Germany in 1950 would have AA missiles (soviet 1950s-1960's style earlier) AT missiles and yes, ICBM that would put the USA in reach of mini-nukes (big incendiary warheads)....
 

piero1971

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
739
Reaction score
0
Location
geneva
Country
llSwitzerland
re. Germany, add helicopter units to heliborne-Mountain divisions and of course in such a case, the SS and volksgrenadiere would be a bigger chunk of the Heer in a real National-socialistic society.

and of course in whatever form the peace happened with britain, to where does the German influence go - Italy would probably have gotten its colonies back. would germany too?
 

piero1971

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
739
Reaction score
0
Location
geneva
Country
llSwitzerland
on the other hand, you may have a USA that goes to a full war asset.

with 50+ essex type carriers, long range B-36 sqadrons, nukes and nukes and nukes...


Britain would have it's typical 1950's type weapons, but would stil be overstretched fighting colonial wars as German agents would surely puch on the independence button for British colonies from Asia to Africa.

and if a Fascist europe is so victorious politically, South America woudl clearly go towards such regimes as well. Argentina, Brazil... all that has to be considered.

and of course communist guerilla inside europe. or perhaps the new fascis/national-socialist way would be accepted ad the social way to make society egalitarian and efficient at last..
 

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
piero1971 said:
eventually you have one side with USA/Britain/Russia guerilla and one with German europe + ?japan.

tough for the USA/Britain !!
Broadly this is more feasible. I'd like to elaborate on a number of variations;

With the war over, Germany will presumably end the occupation of France. France then will probably jump at the opportunity of having another war of revenge. Also after having been beaten in the last war the French are more likely to have the doctrinal edge in the next.

One of two possibilities for Japan;
a) With Japan refusing to declare war on Russia, Germany leaves her high and dry. The Pacific War is concluded seperately, leaving the United States in control of most of the Pacific Rim.

b) Japan did co-operate in the war with Russia (though very likely this would be a disaster for them) and is included in the general settlement. However German and Japanese interests clash in Siberia and the two are far from being close allies, with Japan believing Germany sold her out in the war against the British Empire. Japan remains neutral in the third world war, prefering to focus her energies on China.
 
Last edited:

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
piero1971 said:
Britain would have it's typical 1950's type weapons, but would stil be overstretched fighting colonial wars as German agents would surely puch on the independence button for British colonies from Asia to Africa.
Would they, though? They didn't do this in the Second World War

and if a Fascist europe is so victorious politically, South America woudl clearly go towards such regimes as well. Argentina, Brazil... all that has to be considered.
I expect the continent would be divided politically between the two power blocs.

and of course communist guerilla inside europe.
Dunno. Communism would be pretty heavily discredited with Russia destroyed. There would be lots of guerrillas, but mostly nationalist and Democratic.
 

Narki

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
I Don't like the idea of having Russia destroyed in the scenario since that'd make it just like the Invasion of Nazi Europe but set fifteen years into the future.

How about this...

Perhaps we could asume that Hitler was killed in a military coup and replaced with a new regime that was keen on making peace with Russia and the West? Britain was going bankrupt from the high cost of the war in the late stages of it and would've (I asume) gladly gotten it over with. Russia will be a little harder, but it's not entirely impossible that Stalin would accept a peace with the Germans if the deal was a good one. Alternatively, Stalin too could be removed, perhaps by by war-vary elements of the miltary/communist party eager to get an end to the damn war and return to pre-war borders.

As for for the forces, perhaps BioEd could be used to create entirely new units to the database, mostly for Germany but maybe also for the others as the looming threat of another round between Germany and the other factions might've encouraged the others to keep manufacturing newer, more awesome weapons.
 

piero1971

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
739
Reaction score
0
Location
geneva
Country
llSwitzerland
the thing is that Nazism and Communism were on a collision course and one of the two had to end up beeing eliminated by the others.

Communism would always end up beeing attacked by Germany's Nazis that was one pillar of the Nazi credo - destroy the east and colonize it. the war with the West was an anomaly from Nazi doctrine's standpoint.

IF Hitler died at some point, Nazism would have collapsed or reverted to less fanatic states and more towards fascism and
actually democracies would have been happy to live with Fascist regimes (not too different from the democracies of the times, really) to some extent as long as it did noth attack them, so it really brings West vs. Soviet. and an undefeated Soviet would have high prestige then.
 

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
Narki said:
Perhaps we could asume that Hitler was killed in a military coup and replaced with a new regime that was keen on making peace with Russia and the West?
When? Hitler and the Nazis were extremely popular from June 1940 through to about the time of Stalingrad. This period is almost immediately followed by the Allied demand for Unconditional Surrender. Basically, there was no period in which both sides were looking for a negotiated settlement.

Britain was going bankrupt from the high cost of the war in the late stages of it
We ran out of foriegn capital in 1941, after which we were dependent on Lend Lease for various vital war materials. However building and using our own arms was never really a problem.

and would've (I asume) gladly gotten it over with.
Funny thing about wars. The more you suffer in them, the more you want to get out of them at the end. Britain was really quite determined to make bloody Germany learn its lesson this time.

[quote[but it's not entirely impossible that Stalin would accept a peace with the Germans if the deal was a good one.[/quote]

The difficulty is that this means Germany is the defeated power- and it's no longer Nazi Germany. Your scenario's not an "invasion of Nazi Europe"- it's NATO vs. Warszawa Pact with an incidental twist.

As for for the forces, perhaps BioEd could be used to create entirely new units to the database,
Well yes- just a matter of establishing what their capabilities would be.
 

Ben Turner

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Country
ll
piero1971 said:
the thing is that Nazism and Communism were on a collision course and one of the two had to end up beeing eliminated by the others.
In the example given Naziism has been wiped out. Hitler's been replaced by a military government.

I'm going to go off on a little tangent here so bear with me. It's often stated that Fascism and Communism are polar opposite without ever considering why- it's also often stated that Hitler's and Stalin's regimes had a fair amount of commonality. Worst, Fascism is often described as "far right" as an attempt to understand it's opposition to Communism. This is extremely misleading- remember, it was National Socialism.

What Fascism's all about (according to Mussolini at least) is Social Darwinism, competition between nations as between organisms. In particular, the idea that war is essential to keep the nation alive and competitive. The obvious contrast with this is the idea that nations should unite under one state and live in peace and harmony- and that was the doctrine espoused in Communism during Hitler and Mussolini's formative years in the 1910s and early 1920s.

However what Stalin practiced turned out to be quite different. He largely paid only lip-service to the communist ideals instead practicing what he called "Communism in one country"- not internationalism at all. Thus one could suppose a situation in which the Fascist powers grasped that Stalin wasn't a real communist at all, and that therefore co-operation with him was possible.

Communism would always end up beeing attacked by Germany's Nazis that was one pillar of the Nazi credo - destroy the east and colonize it.
This doesn't have much to do with communism. It's all bound up in racial theories and German mythology- Teutonic knights striking out to colonise the steppe. See "Alexander Nevsky" to appreciate this from the Russian point of view. It's interesting to wonder if in two thousand years historians will describe the Second World War as one in a series of attempts by the Germans to subdue the Slavs.
 

piero1971

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
739
Reaction score
0
Location
geneva
Country
llSwitzerland
Ben, totally agree on Fascism.
in fact, if one pushes the thought further, we can say that Fascism actually WON ww2, in that it is now the preferred system of government of the western nations (a social darwinist, somewhat social system - without the silly uniforms and patriotism but big consumerism)
 
Top