Gordian Protocol Teaser MAJOR spoiler added

runsforcelery wrote:
Now, just because we're making nice right now, don't think it means I'm going to concede any future arguments without one hell of a fight!

Take care

I wouldn't have it any other way, RFC . And thank you!

Dilandu wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:
Now, just because we're making nice right now, don't think it means I'm going to concede any future arguments without one hell of a fight!

Take care

I wouldn't have it any other way, RFC . And thank you!

I am a bit curious on which Hohenzollern became Kaiser. Was it Wilhelm II (who was 80+ years old), was it his son, Crown Prince Wilhelm, or was it his grandson Prince Louis Ferdinand? I have some doubt that the Hohenzollern monarchy would be restored if the Nazis had crashed and burned immediately after the defeat of France. However, I have discovered that the funeral of Louis Ferdinand's older brother (who died in May 1940 of wounds suffered while serving in the Wehrmacht) was very well attended.

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:
I am a bit curious on which Hohenzollern became Kaiser. Was it Wilhelm II (who was 80+ years old), was it his son, Crown Prince Wilhelm, or was it his grandson Prince Louis Ferdinand? I have some doubt that the Hohenzollern monarchy would be restored if the Nazis had crashed and burned immediately after the defeat of France. However, I have discovered that the funeral of Louis Ferdinand's older brother (who died in May 1940 of wounds suffered while serving in the Wehrmacht) was very well attended.

While the restavration of German monarchy was possible (quite a lot of military officers were at least tolerant to this idea), the probability of sucsessfully removing Nazi from power immediately after the fall of France is extremely low. Simply speaking, for absolute majority of Germans at this moment the Nazi government is the one which gave them revenge, greatness and quick victory over most powerful army of Europe (the French one). Short of publicly eating newborn babies, I fail to see, how Nazi could discredit themselves so fast and completely t this moment.

The realistic scenario would probably involve Kaiser achieving power through the compromise between the military and Nazi. Sort of "we both agree that we didn't like this idea, but since its the only thing we could agree on, let's give it a try". The actual removal of Nazi from power would be slow. Even the USSR - which was the most eager to denazificte Germany - was unable to remove all former Nazi functionaries completely. It would collapse everything that still worked in Germany.

Dilandu wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:
And how, precisely, would Great Britain and France dictate military and/or economic conditions within Germany when Germany is basically offering them a victor's peace? The prewar British army is gone, courtesy of the Dunkirk evacuation that didn't happen. The UK's home air defense is probably pretty good; their industry is probably continuing to gear up, but the potential for any successful return to the continent without the sort of overwhelming amphibious capability that existed in 1944 is . . . unlikely to prosper, let us say.

Oh yeah. So after Germany betrayed everyone's trust several times in row, started the war, occupied France and established itself as dominant power in Europe, everyone would be just willing to believe, when Germans declared "okay guys, we are willing to fold a bit, but we would not give back Czech, and we would still have the biggest army in Europe. What guarantees we gave that we didnt just playing for time to re-arm once more and kill you all? Well, the best possible, of course - the honest promise of our Kaiser, who are so honest! He himself said so".

RFC, to obtain anything like that, you need to kill Stalin and Churchill first. And also Darlang and de Gaulle. Because neither of them would agree on such conditions, AFTER Germany already demonstrated that it couldn't be trusted.

1: Britain came damn close to suing for peace with the Nazis, even with Dunkirk providing a strong boost for the "never surrender" side.

So with Hitler dead, and the Germans offering to give back everything they won in the West on the battlefield, I can see the Allies taking it.

Why not? Their militaries are clearly behind the German's. Get industrial capacity and population back, don't get bombed, and be able to build up their military? Win!

So, what's the "lose"?

Dilandu wrote:

He came to power specifically because the Nazi party, from its leadership elements on down, had been utterly discredited by the squabble for power after Hitler's death.

And how exactly in that sorry state Germany managed to defeat anyone?

...

He may want anything he wanted, sorry for the pun. Any attempt to give up Poland would be considered by German peoples and military as betrayal of their interests. It may work, if Germany was in troubles; it would NOT work with Germany being victorious.

Why they should agree on that, when they basically could dictate any therms possible? Sorry, RFC, but you are contradicting yourself very hard

Um, you switched from "no way Britain and France would accept that off" to "that offer is far too generous! no way Germany would make it!" with truly blinding speed.

So you might want to avoid the "you are contradicting yourself very hard" line.

Dilandu:

It's a generally accepted bit of history for educated Americans from my generation (educated in the 80s) that when the Germans invaded the USSR, there were a lot of people willing to throw in with them against the mad butcher Stalin.

The problem was that Hitler was at least as much of a mad butcher, and so wouldn't accept their help.

If you'd like to claim this is not true, feel free. But you're going to need some significant support to have that claim even considered.

As a Nazi and Commie hating American, one who's watched exactly how happy modern Ukrainians were to get out of the FUSSR, that part of the book rang perfectly true to me.

GregD wrote:
Um, you switched from "no way Britain and France would accept that off" to "that offer is far too generous! no way Germany would make it!" with truly blinding speed.

So you might want to avoid the "you are contradicting yourself very hard" line.

I didn't. The scenario is just implausible from too many points. Basically it's required BOTH sides to act against their best judgement, interests, and logic.

GregD wrote:
It's a generally accepted bit of history for educated Americans from my generation (educated in the 80s) that when the Germans invaded the USSR, there were a lot of people willing to throw in with them against the mad butcher Stalin.

Oh please. It was generally accepted bit of history for educated Russians from previous-to-mine generation (80s) that US schemed how to weaken both sides and delayed the invasion until it became obvious that Germany is defeated, and if US did not join fast, then the whole Europe would be liberated by Red Army.

Don't mistake convenient propaganda with the reality.

GregD wrote:
As a Nazi and Commie hating American, one who's watched exactly how happy modern Ukrainians were to get out of the FUSSR, that part of the book rang perfectly true to me.

Well, as Nazi-hating Russian (and half Ukrainian) with a good knowledge of history, and a knack in alternate history, I could say that you obviously didn't knew the facts. Like the fact that on 1991 Soviet Union referendum the majority (78% of population) voted for the USSR to be preserved as a modernized economical and political union.

Basically, you constantly mix the propaganda with reality. Yes, the carefully chosen facts could easily be confused with ALL facts. But they aren't actually.

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:
I am a bit curious on which Hohenzollern became Kaiser. Was it Wilhelm II (who was 80+ years old), was it his son, Crown Prince Wilhelm, or was it his grandson Prince Louis Ferdinand? ...

If I had actually read the sample chapters, I wouldn't have asked the above question. However, since I have now reached the 3/4ths point in the webscription, I do have some comments. The background history briefing in chapter 29 (also chapter 28) contains, IMHO, one outright error and several items that bother me. For that matter, chapter 4 includes some detail as well I will address.
To begin with, the Admin timeline will NOT refer to the period in Europe from September 1939CE to June 1940CE as World War II. Especially since they are referring to subsequent Germany-USSR conflict as the Great Eastern War (which overlapped the UK-USA war with Japan).
I am a bit curious on why France and the UK didn't get a bit rambunctious during while the Nazi party was crashing and burning (especially in the second phase which started in October 1940).
Also, both Japan and Stalin appeared to be a bit too ambitious. I am not certain that Japan would had kicked off its attack on European colonial holdings if the UK and France were not involved in active shooting (if I read the timeline correctly, there was a armistice with peace negotiations underway or at least being discussed) when Japan kicked off their offensive. As it was, it appeared that they had a longer run of hot dice than in out timeline. Stalin was always very cautious. And I don't see him risking a war with Germany when it was at peace with France and the UK. Of course, he would have had thousands (20K, 30K?) T-34s in his army. Perhaps, he thought he could win.

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:Stalin was always very cautious. And I don't see him risking a war with Germany when it was at peace with France and the UK. Of course, he would have had thousands (20K, 30K?) T-34s in his army. Perhaps, he thought he could win.

Exactly. Most importantly, by 1945 the USSR would actually have the military power superior to Germany (which, as I mentioned above, would be completely broke, isolated, and distrusted by everyone around), so even if - somehow - "Western Allies" would manage to won, it would left Eurasia in MUCH worse state than after real World War 2. The USSR-1945, without 1941 disaster, would be an order of magnitude more dangerous opponent, than Germany even dreamed to be.

That's why I consider this scenario as completely unworkable. And that's why I worked out the more plausible variant:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=10010