What If Scenario.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ensis Ferrae**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The Afrika Corps and his "Ghost Division" all had spotless records on the war crimes front while Rommel was in command as far as I recall. The Desert Fox was a good dude as well as the incarnation of a minor deity of warfare.

That's kinda my point, he was a German General, not a Nazi General, and wanted really nothing to do with the political parties. He just wanted to command troops, and try to win a war for his nation.

**Grey Templar**

Frazzled wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
If that had happened I think gunpowder would have been invented at some point. Or at the very least mechanized bolt throwers and such.

The Roman Empire could very well have remained in place to the modern day.

They did have mechanized bolt throwers - at least the Byzantines did. They used a crank to fast load a magazine fed cross bow, like a modern heavy machine gun. Quite cool.

I don't think Rome could have industrialized outside of certain areas. They already had a surplus population built on slavery. in areas where technology was needed, they actually were quite advanced (for example, using giant impromptu water reservoirs to build and effectively blow up hillsides to get at the minerals underneath.

Rome with gunpowder however, oh my. I could envision an empire spanning Europe, North Africa, and all the juicy parts of Asia.
Its almost like there was a Star Trek episode like this...

I think Roman practicality would have made them see the benefit of industrialization. After all, you gotta feed slaves. Less labor needed would be more bodies for the games

And most slaves were, IIRC, not used for major construction projects. They were more for house servants and agricultural work from what I remember. Something about the Romans not trusting slaves with the major public works because of possible sabotage. For those projects it was free men who did the work. And the Legions(citizens) were the ones who built all those nice roads.

**Ratbarf**

I wonder what the Roman Railroad system would have looked like.

**Grey Templar**

They wouldn't have made a turn unless it was absolutely necessary.

Them Romans loved straight lines.

**Frazzled**

Grey Templar wrote:
They wouldn't have made a turn unless it was absolutely necessary.

Them Romans loved straight lines.

In Imperial Rome, there are no curves!!!

**KalashnikovMarine**

That's a lie, you should have seen this one senator's wife at the forum the other day

**WarAngel**

Here's another one. Suppose in someway the Roman Empire had not fallen...

Maybe instead of exploited the Goths or other barbarian tribes were welcomed and made part of the Empire. The Eternal City is no sacked.
Another possibility is a withdrawal from other territories in the way Britain was abandoned. This could be done because someone realized the
empire could not be sustained at that size at that time. Parts could however be reconquered later.

**Grey Templar**

Its not that the Romans didn't welcome the Goths and their buddies, its that the Goths didn't welcome the Romans.

The Roman system of governing the conquered nations was actually pretty decent. They would have a roman garrison and governor, but a large part of the local government would actually be local people. And the Romans weren't super uptight about controlling their subjects were doing as long as they paid the taxes on time and didn't rebel.

With industrial revolution era technology, it would have been a much more lopsided affair. Romans with muskets and cannon vs people still in the Iron-age.

Its possible we would have seen something akin to the massive worldwide empire building that occurred in the 1500-1700s, but instead of a bunch of competing empire we have just one coming out of Europe.

The only competition would have been centuries behind technologically.

**George Spiggott**

WarAngel wrote:What if the Library of Alexandria had not burned and lost the collect knowledge it contain? Specifically what if someone had a spark of inspiration with the Aeolipile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile and started the industrial revolution in the 1st Century AD?

It's not well known but the library at Alexandria was mostly filled with Dan Brown novels, It really wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

On a related note (books), what if the Romans got to China and brought the printing press back to Europe?

Ratbarf wrote:I wonder what the Roman Railroad system would have looked like.

I'm getting a headache just thinking about the time tables.

**Grey Templar**

Yeah, hopefully they would have picked up a better numerical system.

**WarAngel**

George Spiggott wrote:

On a related note (books), what if the Romans got to China and brought the printing press back to Europe?

That's an interesting question.

One thing that comes to mind is the ability to communicate would change. Books would become common and literacy would rise. The people would have stronger ties with one another through knowing their own history better. We in turn would know more of them due to better kept records.

To even get to China probably would have them expand in a different direction and likely the middle east would have never heard much if anything out of them. The actual contact would probably have been done with the eastern part of the empire and things brought back would later find their way to the west. So even with the fall of the west this is still possible.

New religions like Buddhism Taoism etc. might be brought to the Roman territories and would undoubtedly have some effect.

**Grey Templar**

I doubt the Romans would have made it all the way to China. That's a freakin long way away.

Expansion into India and Russia would be more likely.

**Jihadin**

Trade at that time could have made it happen. Byzantine Rome eventually would have acquire black powder. Roman Empire could have acquire Damascus Steel. Rome Rail Roads I've a feeling will look quite....Ultra....

**sebster**

feeder wrote:
The D-Day thread discussion got me to thinking, what if Day-D failed? The Race to Berlin never happens, Nazi Germany still falls to Soviet Russia, but this time The Iron Curtain falls across the English Channel.

Do the Allies continue to hold positions in Italy, or are these abandoned? Not that it matters hugely, but it's interesting to speculate about a free Italy surrounded by a sea of Soviet states. Perhaps you have Italy playing the neutral role that Austria ended up playing in the real Cold War?

And for that matter, how does that impact Japan? I'm guessing the US moves to a Pacific first policy, and sets about rolling up the Japanese as did happen, dropping the bomb and forcing a surrender. I wonder if the US failure at D-Day actually limits Soviet expansion in to Asia, as they would have been facing the full force of the Wehrmacht, and would have committed more troops to roll in to Western Europe, their Manchurian adventure late in the war might never have happened. So maybe the US end up with a unified Korea among its allies.

With access to all of Western Europe's financial and industrial power, is Soviet Russia actually able to make a lasting empire? With no Potsdam Conference, is the State of Israel created? What implications does this have for the Middle East?

Well, with the Western Allies suffering such a humiliating defeat at D-Day, we'd certainly see a massive change in the perception of power, even if the Soviets were unable to revive Western Europe in the way the Marshall Plan achieved in reality. I mean, when talking to powerful governments, are you going to talk to the guys who wiped out Nazi Germany and drove all the way to the coast of France, or are you going to talk to those donkey-caves who couldn't put a second front in France?

It'd basically mean Soviet Russia had a free hand across the Middle East and Africa. The US sphere of influence would likely be restricted to South America, while Asia would be the playground for both sides.

How long that power base lasts, and what meaningful impact the Soviets can drive out of it is a big question. Sooner or later that soft power draw of the US's very high standard of living and personal freedoms will play a big role, but it would likely take a lot longer than it did in reality.

**Jihadin**

Neat link discussing what happen if D-Day had failed and aftermath

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/what-if-d-day-had-failed.htm

German order of Battle

The military forces at the disposal of Nazi Germany reached their numerical peak during 1944. By D-Day, 157 German divisions were stationed in the Soviet Union, six in Finland, 12 in Norway, six in Denmark, nine in Germany, 21 in the Balkans, 26 in Italy and 59 in France, Belgium and the Netherlands.[22] However, these statistics are somewhat misleading since a significant number of the divisions in the east were depleted due to the intensity of the fighting; German records indicate that the average personnel complement was at about 50% in the spring of 1944

Summer 1944[edit]

Main articles: Crimean Offensive (1944), Operation Bagration, Lvov–Sandomierz Offensive, Battle of Tannenberg Line, Warsaw Uprising, Slovak National Uprising, Battle of Romania (1944), Battle of Debrecen, and Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive

The Red Army is greeted in Bucharest, August 1944

Soviet and Polish Armia Krajowa soldiers in Vilnius, July 1944
Wehrmacht planners were convinced that the Soviets would attack again in the south, where the front was fifty miles from Lviv and offered the most direct route to Berlin. Accordingly they stripped troops from Army Group Centre, whose front still protruded deep into the Soviet Union. The Germans had transferred some units to France to counter the invasion of Normandy two weeks before. The Belorussian Offensive (codenamed Operation Bagration), which began on 22 June 1944, was a massive Soviet attack, consisting of four Soviet army groups totaling over 120 divisions that smashed into a thinly held German line. They focused their massive attacks on Army Group Centre, not Army Group North Ukraine as the Germans had originally expected. More than 2.3 million Soviet troops went into action against German Army Group Centre, which boasted a strength of fewer than 800,000 men. At the points of attack, the numerical and quality advantages of the Soviets were overwhelming: the Red Army achieved a ratio of ten to one in tanks and seven to one in aircraft over their enemy. The Germans crumbled. The capital of Belarus, Minsk, was taken on 3 July, trapping some 100,000 Germans. Ten days later the Red Army reached the prewar Polish border. Bagration was by any measure, one of the largest single operations of the war. By the end of August 1944, it had cost the Germans ~400,000 dead, wounded, missing and sick, from whom 160,000 were captured, as well as 2,000 tanks and 57,000 other vehicles. In the operation, the Red Army lost ~180,000 dead and missing (765,815 in total, including wounded and sick plus 5,073 Poles),[54] as well as 2,957 tanks and assault guns. The offensive at Estonia claimed another 480,000 Soviet soldiers, 100,000 of them classed as dead.[55][56]

The neighbouring Lvov–Sandomierz operation was launched on 17 July 1944, rapidly routing the German forces in Western Ukraine. Lviv itself was occupied again by the Soviets on 26 July, the first time being in September 1939 during the Nazi–Soviet alliance and joint invasion of Poland. This time, the city was retaken by the 1st Ukrainian Front, a Soviet force, relatively easily. Ukrainian hopes of independence were squashed amidst the overwhelming force of the Soviets, much like in the Baltic States. The Ukrainian Insurgent Army, UPA, would continue waging a guerrilla war against the Soviets well into the 1950s. The Soviet advance in the south continued into Romania and, following a coup against the Axis-allied government of Romania on 23 August, the Red Army occupied Bucharest on 31 August. In Moscow on 12 September, Romania and the Soviet Union signed an armistice on terms Moscow virtually dictated. The Romanian surrender tore a hole in the southern German Eastern Front causing the inevitable loss of the whole of the Balkans.[citation needed]

Soviet soldiers advance throgh the streets of Jelgava; summer 1944
The rapid progress of Operation Bagration threatened to cut off and isolate the German units of Army Group North bitterly resisting the Soviet advance towards Tallinn. In a ferocious attack at the Sinimäed Hills, Estonia, the Soviet Leningrad Front failed to break through the defence of the smaller, well-fortified army detachment "Narwa" in terrain not suitable for large-scale operations.[57][58]

On the Karelian Isthmus, the Soviets launched a massive attack against the Finnish lines on 9 June 1944, (coordinated with the Allied Invasion of Normandy). Three armies were pitted there against the Finns, among them several experienced guards rifle formations. The attack breached the Finnish front line of defence in Valkeasaari on 10 June and the Finnish forces retreated to their secondary defence line, the VT-line. The Soviet attack was supported by a heavy artillery barrage, air bombardments and armoured forces. The VT-line was breached on 14 June and after a failed counterattack in Kuuterselkä by the Finnish armoured division, the Finnish defense had to be pulled back to the VKT-line. After heavy fighting in the battles of Tali-Ihantala and Ilomantsi, Finnish troops finally managed to halt the Soviet attack.[citation needed]

In Poland, as the Red Army approached, the Polish Home Army (AK) launched Operation Tempest. During the Warsaw Uprising, the Soviet Army halted at the Vistula River, unable or unwilling to come to the aid of the Polish resistance. An attempt by the communist controlled 1st Polish Army to relieve the city was unsupported by the Red Army and was thrown back in September with heavy losses.[citation needed]

In Slovakia, the Slovak National Uprising started as an armed struggle between German Wehrmacht forces and rebel Slovak troops between August and October 1944. It was centered at Banská Bystrica.[citation needed]

Believe German forces were quite depleted on both fronts. Even if the germans transferred troops from the western front as "plugger" troops. Along wit a few divisions from Italy to help plug a few more holes in the Eastern Line. Probaly extended Germany for another eight months. Probaly two more months since troops were not gathered for the "Bulge" Question be. Would Hitler let Guderian, Rommel, Kluge, Runstedt, Manstein and maybe Dietrich conduct the remaining timeline of the war.

**WarAngel**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The Afrika Corps and his "Ghost Division" all had spotless records on the war crimes front while Rommel was in command as far as I recall. The Desert Fox was a good dude as well as the incarnation of a minor deity of warfare.

That's kinda my point, he was a German General, not a Nazi General, and wanted really nothing to do with the political parties. He just wanted to command troops, and try to win a war for his nation.

I remember picking up somewhere that he far better than most of his time. He treated prisoners better and didn't buy into the killing of Jews. I think he even knew about the Valkyrie plot and chose to ignore it. Which means by itself he wasn't pro-Hitler.

sebster wrote:
So maybe the US end up with a unified Korea among its allies.

Carrying on with that train of thought maybe the Vietnam War never happens and communism doesn't take root in SE Asia, or at least is not as strong.

**feeder**

sebster wrote:
feeder wrote:
The D-Day thread discussion got me to thinking, what if Day-D failed? The Race to Berlin never happens, Nazi Germany still falls to Soviet Russia, but this time The Iron Curtain falls across the English Channel.

Do the Allies continue to hold positions in Italy, or are these abandoned? Not that it matters hugely, but it's interesting to speculate about a free Italy surrounded by a sea of Soviet states. Perhaps you have Italy playing the neutral role that Austria ended up playing in the real Cold War?

Actually I hadn't considered Italy. Would Italy manage to be self sufficient during a Cold War West Berlin-style embargo? The Soviets would certainly try to prop up an Itallian Communist party. And what of Spain? Could there be a Spanish-Soviet France war?

And for that matter, how does that impact Japan? I'm guessing the US moves to a Pacific first policy, and sets about rolling up the Japanese as did happen, dropping the bomb and forcing a surrender. I wonder if the US failure at D-Day actually limits Soviet expansion in to Asia, as they would have been facing the full force of the Wehrmacht, and would have committed more troops to roll in to Western Europe, their Manchurian adventure late in the war might never have happened. So maybe the US end up with a unified Korea among its allies.

Yes, absolutely. I imagine a much stronger western control of the far East. Although how many of the minor Communist states in that region were Chinese puppets, and how many were Soviet? I mean China still goes full commie. Perhaps the stronger West allows for a full scale invasion of N Korea, and that triggers a much larger war with China directly?

With access to all of Western Europe's financial and industrial power, is Soviet Russia actually able to make a lasting empire? With no Potsdam Conference, is the State of Israel created? What implications does this have for the Middle East?

Well, with the Western Allies suffering such a humiliating defeat at D-Day, we'd certainly see a massive change in the perception of power, even if the Soviets were unable to revive Western Europe in the way the Marshall Plan achieved in reality. I mean, when talking to powerful governments, are you going to talk to the guys who wiped out Nazi Germany and drove all the way to the coast of France, or are you going to talk to those donkey-caves who couldn't put a second front in France?

Yeah, I just don't see a Soviet style rebuild plan working that well, just look at living standards in East vs West Germany, circa 1986. The UK would either be a European Cuba, or some massive military installation as depicted in the book 1984.

It'd basically mean Soviet Russia had a free hand across the Middle East and Africa. The US sphere of influence would likely be restricted to South America, while Asia would be the playground for both sides.

I wonder if the Soviets would have been able to subjugate the Afghans if the US hadn't been propping up the Taliban. Would the Sheik and Princes of the Middle East be compatible with the Soviet style of government/puppet states? Maybe we see a much wider conflict in the Middle East as each desert kingdom tries to resist the dreaded "communist domino effect".

How long that power base lasts, and what meaningful impact the Soviets can drive out of it is a big question. Sooner or later that soft power draw of the US's very high standard of living and personal freedoms will play a big role, but it would likely take a lot longer than it did in reality.

Ultimately I agree with this. The subtle, irresistible power of Coca-cola and Levi's will overcome any amount of overtly authoritarian KGB gulags.

**sebster**

WarAngel wrote:
Carrying on with that train of thought maybe the Vietnam War never happens and communism doesn't take root in SE Asia, or at least is not as strong.

Maybe the US, seeing the whole world turn to communism, does a whole lot more to prop up the KMT in China? Maybe that's Vietnam a generation sooner?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:
Actually I hadn't considered Italy. Would Italy manage to be self sufficient during a Cold War West Berlin-style embargo? The Soviets would certainly try to prop up an Itallian Communist party. And what of Spain? Could there be a Spanish-Soviet France war?

Any effort by the Soviets to sponsor local socialists would probably have been as counter-productive as it was in reality (they tended to isolate and even antagonise grass roots socialist movements, instead relying on a small number of true believers who just spouted the party line, which often had nothing to do with the local issues that drove people to socialist and communist theories).

And the fate of Spain is a good one. On the one hand, for the triumphant Communists they'd be unlikely to let the defeat in the Civil War unavenged, but on the other hand, like in the real events of WWII and the Cold War, why in the hell would anyone want Spain. After the Civil War that place was a bombed out hole, which is arguably still playing catch up today.

Yes, absolutely. I imagine a much stronger western control of the far East. Although how many of the minor Communist states in that region were Chinese puppets, and how many were Soviet? I mean China still goes full commie. Perhaps the stronger West allows for a full scale invasion of N Korea, and that triggers a much larger war with China directly?

With Western Europe falling to the USSR, would the US have been as willing to let the Communists chase the KMT out of China? Could that have been the new Vietnam, only on an even greater scale?

Or following their withdrawal from Europe in WWII, would the US have been even more timid in their foreign policy? Again, it's a good question and I think fiction could plausibly take it either way.

Yeah, I just don't see a Soviet style rebuild plan working that well, just look at living standards in East vs West Germany, circa 1986. The UK would either be a European Cuba, or some massive military installation as depicted in the book 1984.

Yeah, the Soviets had impressive industrial production, but transferring that in to a modern economy is not something that happens under a socialist regime. So it's fair to say all of Europe would end up looking something like Eastern Europe circa 1986 (which still looks a lot like much of Eastern Europe today) - that is to say - not impressive. And certainly not the engine room of world domination.

I wonder if the Soviets would have been able to subjugate the Afghans if the US hadn't been propping up the Taliban. Would the Sheik and Princes of the Middle East be compatible with the Soviet style of government/puppet states? Maybe we see a much wider conflict in the Middle East as each desert kingdom tries to resist the dreaded "communist domino effect".

If the USSR has a much freer hand to move in to the Middle East, then maybe the USSR never bothers with Afghanistan at all?

And it's important to note that culturally, Islam and Socialism are not that far apart. Islamic law actually argues for a kind of mild to strong socialism derived from a strong state, and so apart from the whole 'god is a lie' thing they've typically been easy bedfellows. Not enough to fight against US dollars, but in this alternate history those dollars won't be there, so...

Ultimately I agree with this. The subtle, irresistible power of Coca-cola and Levi's will overcome any amount of overtly authoritarian KGB gulags.

Yeah, it still declines and falls, but the question is how long.