Gordian Protocol Teaser MAJOR spoiler added

Dilandu wrote:Well, since there is Vladivostok, then the divergence point is no further than 1860, when it was founded.

Operation Yellow Brick, the Pacific Allies' invasion of Vladivostok, staged through occupied Japan to meet their Imperial German allies, was brutally interrupted.

As far as I know, the "Yellow" war plans were reserved for China. Russia was labeled as "Green" pre-1904 (and after 1904 weren't in color-coded plans anymore).

In which there was still a Soviet Union.

So the divergence point is no further than 1920s.

to meet their Imperial German allies, was brutally interrupted.

Well... good luck to them) Traversing along the length of Siberia, against the population that is generally as "eager" to greet the invaders as Texans may be... How fast the "Pacific Allies" government collapsed under popular uproar against cold-climate analogue of Vietnam War?

In which the Chinese Communists had succeeded

Then no further than 1927?

The divergence point could easily have been prior to 1927 or 1860. This might be an alternative time line in which Vladivostok might have been founded in 1860 or even before 1860 and the Chinese communists had begun their revolt. The critical differences in the timeline might not have precluded this events occurring.

One possible diversion in the time line is the sinking of the Lusitania. If the torpedo from the German U-boat had missed the ocean liner, the United States might have remained isolationist during World War One. Without US troops to reinforce Great Britain and France, the war would have ended in a stalemate. The onerous terms of the Treaty of Versailles would not have been imposed on Germany so they would still have the Kaiser rather than the Fuher ruling Germany.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:One possible diversion in the time line is the sinking of the Lusitania. If the torpedo from the German U-boat had missed the ocean liner, the United States might have remained isolationist during World War One. Without US troops to reinforce Great Britain and France, the war would have ended in a stalemate. The onerous terms of the Treaty of Versailles would not have been imposed on Germany so they would still have the Kaiser rather than the Fuher ruling Germany.

The "Lusitania" sinking wasn't important. Sure, it caused great public outcry, but only marginally affected the political course. Germany was longstanding opponent of United States expansion on Pacific and in Central America since XIX century. USA were already the world's greatest industrial power, but they could not benefit completely from that without demonstrating their military power & turning into decisive power in Europe. The US entrance in WW1 was pretty much inevitable, since it was what US elite wanted.

fallsfromtrees wrote:The other odd thing is that Operation Yellow Brick was launched from "occupied Japan" - which implies that World War II was fought but WWII probably doesn't happen without the rise of Hitler in Germany - which requires the extinction of the German Empire. There is definitely something odd in the timeline.

Why?

During the 1920s and early 1930s, the US Navy viewed a conflict with Great Britain as more plausible than a conflict with Germany or even Japan which had been an ally during World War One.

An alternate history might be:

NO sinking of the Lousitania and thus no US intervention in WW1 and Imperial Germany achieves at least a stalemate. No Hitler.

The USSR sponsors a communist insurgency in China that seriously threatens US as well as European interests.

Japan allies with the USSR and its Communist Chinese insurgents to conquer China with the goal of expelling the American and European powers. This threatens the American and European territorial interests in the Pacific as well as Australia.

France, Great Britain and the United States become so alarmed that they ally with Imperial Germany against the USSR and Japan along with the communist insurgents in China. Germany reinforced rather than hindered by France, Great Britain and even America and American oil invades the USSR takes and holds Moscow while USA defeats the Japanese navy and invades Japan.

Dilandu wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:One possible diversion in the time line is the sinking of the Lusitania. If the torpedo from the German U-boat had missed the ocean liner, the United States might have remained isolationist during World War One. Without US troops to reinforce Great Britain and France, the war would have ended in a stalemate. The onerous terms of the Treaty of Versailles would not have been imposed on Germany so they would still have the Kaiser rather than the Fuher ruling Germany.

The "Lusitania" sinking wasn't important. Sure, it caused great public outcry, but only marginally affected the political course. Germany was longstanding opponent of United States expansion on Pacific and in Central America since XIX century. USA were already the world's greatest industrial power, but they could not benefit completely from that without demonstrating their military power & turning into decisive power in Europe. The US entrance in WW1 was pretty much inevitable, since it was what US elite wanted.

A cogent analysis but the conclusion is not inevitable. Without the public outrage provoked by the Lousitania, the US elites would not have gotten a declaration of war against Germany, at least in Eurpe. A more plausible alternative would be the US conquering German possesions in the Pacific and German interests in Latin America. Germany might have even offerred concessions in the Pacific and Latin America to buy US neutrality!

This would be similar to my willingness to recognize Russia's reasonable claims to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in return for Russia not supporting China and may be ceding Western Alaska (aka Eastern Siberia) to the US.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:
During the 1920s and early 1930s, the US Navy viewed a conflict with Great Britain as more plausible than a conflict with Germany or even Japan which had been an ally during World War One.

Absolute nonsense. The "Orange" war plans were always receiving the most thoughtful considerations since 1919 at least. There WERE war plans against Britain (Red), or British-Japanese alliance (Red-Orange), but at this time US military have war plans against almost everyone (with the exception of USSR, actually).

NO sinking of the Lousitania and thus no US intervention in WW1 and Imperial Germany achieves at least a stalemate. No Hitler.

Impossible. The US entry in WW1 was determined by the US desire to play bigger role on world's map.

The USSR sponsors a communist insurgency in China that seriously threatens US as well as European interests.

Should I mind you, that initially USSR supported the Kuomintang, and Chinese communists were allies of Kuomintang against warlords?

Japan allies with the USSR and its Communist Chinese insurgents to conquer China with the goal of expelling the American and European powers. This threatens the American and European territorial interests in the Pacific as well as Australia.

Just plainly stupid. What possible common goal could USSR and Japan have in China? USSR was anti-colonial, and pro-Kuomintang; what would USSR gain from aiding Japan? The USSR was not interested in any colonial escapades.

France, Great Britain and the United States become so alarmed that they ally with Imperial Germany against the USSR and Japan along with the communist insurgents in China. Germany reinforced rather than hindered by France, Great Britain and even America and American oil invades the USSR takes and holds Moscow while USA defeats the Japanese navy and invades Japan.

...Should I explain the utter stupidity of that scenario? France aiding Germany just because USSR stirred water in China? Britain allying with USA against Japan pre-war? And why exactly USA should bother that colonial powers have problems with communists? One of the points, where USA and USSR always agreed, was the dissolution of colonial system.

TFLYTSNBN wrote: A more plausible alternative would be the US conquering German possesions in the Pacific

...They were already conquered by Japanese in 1914.

and German interests in Latin America.

US already considered them taken.

Germany might have even offerred concessions in the Pacific and Latin America to buy US neutrality!

Concessions in WHAT? By 1915, Germany lost all its former colonial empire outside East Africa, and the loss of it seems inevitable (nobody expect the Lettow-Vorbeck to hold until 1918).

Dilandu wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote: A more plausible alternative would be the US conquering German possesions in the Pacific

...They were already conquered by Japanese in 1914.

and German interests in Latin America.

US already considered them taken.

Germany might have even offerred concessions in the Pacific and Latin America to buy US neutrality!

Concessions in WHAT? By 1915, Germany lost all its former colonial empire outside East Africa, and the loss of it seems inevitable (nobody expect the Lettow-Vorbeck to hold until 1918).

You are basing your argument on conditions after WW1. An alternate time line might have resulted in Germany NOT loosing its Pacific territories.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:You are basing your argument on conditions after WW1. An alternate time line might have resulted in Germany NOT loosing its Pacific territories.

To put it simply: it is absolutely impossible. The Germans never actually planned even to fight for them. All they wanted from their colonial garrisons is to hold about a half of year. During which, as German high command assumed, the war in Europe would be concluded (oh, those naive pre-1914 optimism...) and colonies would turn into objects of trade on peace conferences. The prolonged East African campaign was a total surprise for Germany also, and only due to military genius of Lettow-Vorbeck.

Even if for some - insane - reason, Germany would start to augment their colonial defenses, they simply could not do much. There are only a very small Germanic population here. The total German population of New Guinea was about 1400 when the war started; Samoa even less. Basically the Tsingtao was the only major fortress that Germany have on Pacific, but it have no support base (in was Chinese concession, after all!) and no reinforcements would change that.

In short - the Germany Pacific colonies were doomed to be taken, and Germany accepted that, hoping to retook them after "quick and decisive victory" over Entente. Only Tsingtao was supposed to hold for any prolonged period, since it was the only German naval base on Pacific.

Dilandu wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:You are basing your argument on conditions after WW1. An alternate time line might have resulted in Germany NOT loosing its Pacific territories.

To put it simply: it is absolutely impossible. The Germans never actually planned even to fight for them. All they wanted from their colonial garrisons is to hold about a half of year. During which, as German high command assumed, the war in Europe would be concluded (oh, those naive pre-1914 optimism...) and colonies would turn into objects of trade on peace conferences. The prolonged East African campaign was a total surprise for Germany also, and only due to military genius of Lettow-Vorbeck.

Even if for some - insane - reason, Germany would start to augment their colonial defenses, they simply could not do much. There are only a very small Germanic population here. The total German population of New Guinea was about 1400 when the war started; Samoa even less. Basically the Tsingtao was the only major fortress that Germany have on Pacific, but it have no support base (in was Chinese concession, after all!) and no reinforcements would change that.

In short - the Germany Pacific colonies were doomed to be taken, and Germany accepted that, hoping to retook them after "quick and decisive victory" over Entente. Only Tsingtao was supposed to hold for any prolonged period, since it was the only German naval base on Pacific.

The German Pacific possessions were the Philippines and the US writ large . . . except that there was no way in hell for the Imperial German Navy to fight its way back to them. The only way I can see for the Kaiser to hang onto them in an alternate history would be for Japan to have signed on with the Central Powers and played the role of protector and that was . . . unlikely. As in the same degree of likelihood as that an American MLB player from Guatemala with a .475 batting average and a 40 home run season, on a team bound for the World Series, would suddenly decide to move to Norway in October and take up curling, instead.

Well, actually, maybe a skosh less likely than that.