The Historical RP Group HQ 2

[Paketo]

I'd much rather just a Ho?-esque RP where god is the body of studies we've collected to handle the RP's realism.

Body of Studies? would that be like a collection of resources to guide when tech should be developed

[Alleniana]

I'd much rather just a Ho?-esque RP where god is the body of studies we've collected to handle the RP's realism.

Body of Studies? would that be like a collection of resources to guide when tech should be developed

To guide the path of civilisation in general. In particular, the way overpopulation created the cycle of civilisations that would rise, overpopulate, not develop tech fast enough to overcome the problem, and collapse, unless interrupted (this applies to pretty much anything; Song-Mongols (interruption), Sumer/Akkad/etc. (collapse), Rome (collapse), Aztecs (interrupted))

[Terminus Alpha]

Here's some Mongol-world

Basically, what has happened is that the Mongols continue to expand into Europe, conquering Poland and Hungary and shattering the HRE in two. The Russians are either direct subjects of the Mongols or tributaries. The Mongol expansion has also lead to the Byzantine's demise, with the Latins taking the Western Empire and the Rumite Turks taking the East. Trebzond has unified with Georgia for some measure of protection from the Sunni Turks to the south, Shia/Nestorian Mongols to the Southeast, and the Buddhist/Orthodox Christian/Tengri Mongols to the North.

In the Far East, the Yuan Dynasty rules as hegemon. China, Korea, and Southern Japan are controlled directly by the Mongols, the vast majority of the remaining states pay tribute to the Khan in Nanjing.

[Emilio Aguinaldo]

Here's some Mongol-world

Basically, what has happened is that the Mongols continue to expand into Europe, conquering Poland and Hungary and shattering the HRE in two. The Russians are either direct subjects of the Mongols or tributaries. The Mongol expansion has also lead to the Byzantine's demise, with the Latins taking the Western Empire and the Rumite Turks taking the East. Trebzond has unified with Georgia for some measure of protection from the Sunni Turks to the south, Shia/Nestorian Mongols to the Southeast, and the Buddhist/Orthodox Christian/Tengri Mongols to the North.

In the Far East, the Yuan Dynasty rules as hegemon. China, Korea, and Southern Japan are controlled directly by the Mongols, the vast majority of the remaining states pay tribute to the Khan in Nanjing.

May I ask how did they get suitable fodder for their horses when they passed Poland?

[Terminus Alpha]

Here's some Mongol-world

Basically, what has happened is that the Mongols continue to expand into Europe, conquering Poland and Hungary and shattering the HRE in two. The Russians are either direct subjects of the Mongols or tributaries. The Mongol expansion has also lead to the Byzantine's demise, with the Latins taking the Western Empire and the Rumite Turks taking the East. Trebzond has unified with Georgia for some measure of protection from the Sunni Turks to the south, Shia/Nestorian Mongols to the Southeast, and the Buddhist/Orthodox Christian/Tengri Mongols to the North.

In the Far East, the Yuan Dynasty rules as hegemon. China, Korea, and Southern Japan are controlled directly by the Mongols, the vast majority of the remaining states pay tribute to the Khan in Nanjing.

May I ask how did they get suitable fodder for their horses when they passed Poland?

They fought a few battles in Germany, but since it's outside of the Great European Plain, they couldn't hold onto any gains. The HRE is shattered because the HREmperor was unable to protect his subjects at all, and ended up dying in a battle with the Mongols. The Northern HRE formed the Confederation of Princes, Cities, and Priests, which is essentially the Hansa but without the focus on trade and cities.

South HRE is still HRE, ruled from Austria and/or Bavaria.

[Alleniana]

Here's some Mongol-world

Basically, what has happened is that the Mongols continue to expand into Europe, conquering Poland and Hungary and shattering the HRE in two. The Russians are either direct subjects of the Mongols or tributaries. The Mongol expansion has also lead to the Byzantine's demise, with the Latins taking the Western Empire and the Rumite Turks taking the East. Trebzond has unified with Georgia for some measure of protection from the Sunni Turks to the south, Shia/Nestorian Mongols to the Southeast, and the Buddhist/Orthodox Christian/Tengri Mongols to the North.

In the Far East, the Yuan Dynasty rules as hegemon. China, Korea, and Southern Japan are controlled directly by the Mongols, the vast majority of the remaining states pay tribute to the Khan in Nanjing.

Hmm... interesting, though at what point do we begin?

[Of The Rnclave]

Historical RP Advertisement Form
RP name: When Everything Changed: 2001
Link to RP: Shameless Advertising

OP/co-OPs of RP: Epraria, ZATAK and Republic of Vietnam

Genre: Adventure, Political
Elaboration on RP: Its a collaboration of several rps, as well as taking some queues from Forge of Empires. It's a very AH world, with a Aleyskan dominated North America, a Korean Empire and a German Confederstion.
Target RPer group: Nation Rpers, People who rp realistically
Other info: Come join us!
429429 (marks this as an advertisement form)

[Alleniana]

Yay, someone used the form!

[Terminus Alpha]

Here's some Mongol-world

Basically, what has happened is that the Mongols continue to expand into Europe, conquering Poland and Hungary and shattering the HRE in two. The Russians are either direct subjects of the Mongols or tributaries. The Mongol expansion has also lead to the Byzantine's demise, with the Latins taking the Western Empire and the Rumite Turks taking the East. Trebzond has unified with Georgia for some measure of protection from the Sunni Turks to the south, Shia/Nestorian Mongols to the Southeast, and the Buddhist/Orthodox Christian/Tengri Mongols to the North.

In the Far East, the Yuan Dynasty rules as hegemon. China, Korea, and Southern Japan are controlled directly by the Mongols, the vast majority of the remaining states pay tribute to the Khan in Nanjing.

Hmm... interesting, though at what point do we begin?

1300-ish, a few decades into Mongol rule of Eurasia.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Yknow what could use a RP? The Bronze Age, on another earth. Just men, no crazy creatures, but a struggle to survive and develop in the face of limited and unknown resources. One of my main gripes with alt-hist early civilization RPs is that everyone knows what works, so duh spam bronze.

So I might make a RP with different metals, different crops, hidden resources. Maybe even alter some fundamental laws and fauna. That could be interesting.

[Alleniana]

Hmm... interesting, though at what point do we begin?

1300-ish, a few decades into Mongol rule of Eurasia.

So, have the Mongols begun declining yet?

[Terminus Alpha]

Yknow what could use a RP? The Bronze Age, on another earth. Just men, no crazy creatures, but a struggle to survive and develop in the face of limited and unknown resources. One of my main gripes with alt-hist early civilization RPs is that everyone knows what works, so duh spam bronze.

So I might make a RP with different metals, different crops, hidden resources. Maybe even alter some fundamental laws and fauna. That could be interesting.

Do it. Sounds fun.

1300-ish, a few decades into Mongol rule of Eurasia.

So, have the Mongols begun declining yet?

Not entirely, but the cracks in the facade are growing bigger, especially in the westernmost Khanates. The Yuan and Ilkhanate still have enough steam in them to keep going for a while.

[Alleniana]

Yknow what could use a RP? The Bronze Age, on another earth. Just men, no crazy creatures, but a struggle to survive and develop in the face of limited and unknown resources. One of my main gripes with alt-hist early civilization RPs is that everyone knows what works, so duh spam bronze.

So I might make a RP with different metals, different crops, hidden resources. Maybe even alter some fundamental laws and fauna. That could be interesting.

What sort of timescale? As in, a year a day/post, or more like a week a day/post?

[Neo-Assyrian Empire]

Yknow what could use a RP? The Bronze Age, on another earth. Just men, no crazy creatures, but a struggle to survive and develop in the face of limited and unknown resources. One of my main gripes with alt-hist early civilization RPs is that everyone knows what works, so duh spam bronze.

So I might make a RP with different metals, different crops, hidden resources. Maybe even alter some fundamental laws and fauna. That could be interesting.

That sounds interesting. Would it remain in the Bronze Age or would the RP continue on into the Industrial Era and beyond?

[G-Tech Corporation]

Yknow what could use a RP? The Bronze Age, on another earth. Just men, no crazy creatures, but a struggle to survive and develop in the face of limited and unknown resources. One of my main gripes with alt-hist early civilization RPs is that everyone knows what works, so duh spam bronze.

So I might make a RP with different metals, different crops, hidden resources. Maybe even alter some fundamental laws and fauna. That could be interesting.

What sort of timescale? As in, a year a day/post, or more like a week a day/post?

Probably the latter, or more around a month or so a page. Enough to allow meaningful progress, but not so quick as to overwhelm me about informing folks about what they've discovered.

[Alleniana]

What sort of timescale? As in, a year a day/post, or more like a week a day/post?

Probably the latter, or more around a month or so a page. Enough to allow meaningful progress, but not so quick as to overwhelm me about informing folks about what they've discovered.

Ok, hmm. Would it retain the feel of the RL Bronze Age, or would it be more fantasy-themed?

[G-Tech Corporation]

Probably the latter, or more around a month or so a page. Enough to allow meaningful progress, but not so quick as to overwhelm me about informing folks about what they've discovered.

Ok, hmm. Would it retain the feel of the RL Bronze Age, or would it be more fantasy-themed?

Well, that depends how well I can pull it off. There'd have to be some necessary deviations from hard science, because u can't change the laws of inter atomic bonding. I'll certainly try to avoid magic and other such tomfoolery though.

[Alleniana]

Ok, hmm. Would it retain the feel of the RL Bronze Age, or would it be more fantasy-themed?

Well, that depends how well I can pull it off. There'd have to be some necessary deviations from hard science, because u can't change the laws of inter atomic bonding. I'll certainly try to avoid magic and other such tomfoolery though.

I mean, if you assembled a good group of RPers, I imagine the Bronze-rushing wouldn't be an issue at all.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Well, that depends how well I can pull it off. There'd have to be some necessary deviations from hard science, because u can't change the laws of inter atomic bonding. I'll certainly try to avoid magic and other such tomfoolery though.

I mean, if you assembled a good group of RPers, I imagine the Bronze-rushing wouldn't be an issue at all.

True. Perhaps merely working on an alternate earth to give it the feel of discovery instead of played out ARR might be wise.

[The Industrial States of Columbia]

I mean, if you assembled a good group of RPers, I imagine the Bronze-rushing wouldn't be an issue at all.

True. Perhaps merely working on an alternate earth to give it the feel of discovery instead of played out ARR might be wise.

Can I make ze continental map O-O I ob love new continents.

[Of The Rnclave]

Yay, someone used the form!

Is that uncommon?

[Alleniana]

Yay, someone used the form!

Is that uncommon?

Somewhat

[Epraria]

Here's some Mongol-world

Basically, what has happened is that the Mongols continue to expand into Europe, conquering Poland and Hungary and shattering the HRE in two. The Russians are either direct subjects of the Mongols or tributaries. The Mongol expansion has also lead to the Byzantine's demise, with the Latins taking the Western Empire and the Rumite Turks taking the East. Trebzond has unified with Georgia for some measure of protection from the Sunni Turks to the south, Shia/Nestorian Mongols to the Southeast, and the Buddhist/Orthodox Christian/Tengri Mongols to the North.

In the Far East, the Yuan Dynasty rules as hegemon. China, Korea, and Southern Japan are controlled directly by the Mongols, the vast majority of the remaining states pay tribute to the Khan in Nanjing.

Oh hey it's the Kalmar Union.

[The Jonathanian States]

Informal proposal, but assuming a full german victory, that'd be roughly the plan.
But it's hard to simplify this as these things interact. The "how" for Germany's victory is critical to the British-German peace and to an extent to the Japanese-German one. So is the Ottoman fate dependent on at least time of German victory, and the German victory could be affected by Italy.

That is possible, IIRC, but hard to achieve unless your actual PoD is earlier. I may be wrong, 'tis a long time since I last dug into the topic.

Hard to acheive? Pssh, butterfly armies

Butterflies are things that happen after your PoD and are affected by it.
You can't butterfly your PoD. That's like saying that you want to breath in your vacuum. Don't try, the results will be horrible, probably painful, death.

Roughly equal as Britain also controls all German colonies that Japan doesn't.

But leaning towards Germany, because there's pretty much nothing except colonies and navy going for the Brits, and if the colonies get taken by land or something, which is not quite ridiculous, then the navy is ded too.

Japan might gain some through a loophole of sessions, or directly, but no de-facto white Peace.

De jure white peace, though.

Either collapse or some sort of escape, depends on if they are fed and on how/when Germany won.

Yeah, some weird stuff. Probably something like back in the times of the Khedivate, except less weird.

Sakhalin? German Pacific? Indochina? Treaty ports?

Because it can't.

I'd say giving Japan one or two is quite reasonable, considering they hold Qingdao and will hold all others once they are de-jure German.

Except that the treaty ports pretty much control Chinese trade, so Germany would be essentially handing over everything of China that's useful to a coloniser to Japan if it surrendered all the ports. Also, considering the disdain the Brits and French had for the Japanese, I wouldn't be surprised if they handed over the keys to Germans without waiting for the Japanese.

It's something.

But that doesn't mean that having Russia formally cede it could simplify things.

Germany somewhat liked foreign commies. *cough*Lenin'sfieldtrip*cough*

*murica* TIME TO REMOVE SOME COMMIES

So you have no /actual/ reply?

All of east asia as a whole, including, for example, Indochina. But if it isn't that much to lose, why not just hand it over. It might help appease Japan and was logistically shitty anyway.

Well, then, Germany would have to lay claim to Indochina first. And handing over things to someone you were supposed to beat in a war is bad for prestige.

Ok.

8 months of nothing.

Well, even that ended with actual fighting.

Note how the war ended by war between two countries that border each other. In this case we are talking about possibly almost literally half the world being between the two opponents.
Logistically speaking, Germany will not do anything against Japan before having found peace with the British. As otherwise it can't do anything by sea within the next decade or two.

So unless Germany goes for a crazy march through Persia, through Baluchistan, through all of India, then through Burma, followed by finally possibly encountering the Japanese in Indochina, they can't fight Japan before Britain.
And then they'd have to find some way to reach the other places without going by sea, if they haven't defeated the Brits yet.

Basically, the german position will decline in time as Japan creates fait accompli-s.

Japan would hold any de-jure German land before Germany could be there. So yes, unless it negotiates a peace with Japan, it'll be invading everything it wants, and more maybe.

Hmm, fair point.

True.

Considering everybody they could get reparations from is wrecked in some form or another, it'd take time until those trees bear fruit.

Time, but not too long. The difference is being able to trade with the European continent and not.

That, as well, doesn't suddenly make resources appear out of thin air.

Not out of thin air, but out of others' pockets.
For that they have to first be in those others' pockets.
Also, you talked about reparations....
Do you know that Germany finished paying off the WW1 debt in 2010? Yes, less than ten years ago. It was October, so it isn't even five.
That a bit more than half of the demanded reparations weren't actually ever supposed to be paid by Germany, but rather create a bigger number?
Let's also not forget that the actual commission for the reparations was created in 1921 and that changes to them were made in '24 and '30. There's also the Hoover Moratorium, but I guess all of those happen far enough after this discussion.

My point is, even if reparations are that sustaining long-term, it takes time to get them moving properly and they rely on the economic situation of the country paying.

For both of those, remember that Germany itself was quite close to starvation. (Possibly a slight exaggeration, but my point stands).

And considering how well it did even so, its current access to breadbaskets everywhere is going to quickly alleviate that. Britain has no such equivalent for its own resource shortages.

True.

mhm.

British decline doesn't fix Germany. Being able to actually trade overseas and such would help.

It can, now. It can trade with France and Soviet Russia and Iran and Spain and Egypt if it so wants.

Soviet Russia is in a Civil war and IIRC not even fully recognized. Iran is far away, and to an extent so are Spain and Egypt.
France.... I guess they can trade through France. But I wouldn't be surprised at passive resistance at shipments to Germany.

So USA+UK is far smaller than Europe in what?

Economic significance. Assuming that the smaller partner in bilateral trade always suffers more when trade is cut, then USA and UK will suffer more.

But is that assumption true? (I'm actually asking, Economics as such aren't my field of expertise).
Also, wouldn't that strengthen economic ties between the US and the UK... hmm.... could we maybe see a :notEu: of the Anglophone areas sometime in the far future of this timeline, if it works politically?
Though back to topic: You only account for trade lost directly with Britain. Even though they can trade through France, international trade will still be suffering a heavy loss, especially should Britain move the blockade further west to include France.
(Though honestly I'm not a 100% sure that they'd be able to do that.)

Mhm.

Not quite.

I did tell you how except for nearly-collapsing Germany everybody else is either minor or new or weak or multiple of those?
No, but seriously, you say "all the Central Powers" as if all of mankind stands united. We are talking about a collection of eastern-european states, two multi-national empires that historically were shattered at this point in time, and Germany, which was defeated here, OTL.

And this group did passably well in north Africa, as well as nearly everywhere else. Now, remove several of their biggest enemies, and surely they'll perform better against those remaining, no?

That group got pushed back by 1915. That isn't as well as everywhere else. And then it was continuously pushed back even deeper.
But my point is, we don't remove any enemies this group had.

Except that we add the US into the equation, while neither Russia, nor Italy or France were part of the Suez campaign. Also, any Germans that we add to this equation will have come from war. Tired out.

They weren't in the campaign, but they drew troops and resources away from it.

True. Except that troops die and resources get lost so: amount invested everywhere else > amount moveable to Suez
In addition any and all troops moved to Suez would have been in combat for a long time, and all of in in a different climate and terrain, if they'd be coming straight from Russia even a massive change.
Of course, the same applies for any British reinforcements to there, which I consider more than likely.
Also, you'd have the US who already are invested in this war. With the Summer offensive succeeding US troops would be dropped off in Suez instead. Or behind German lines, I guess.

Your point?

Except it doesn't, as much as Britain or the US are regarded. Germany can strut around Europe as much as it wants, everywhere else Britain is in control and will continue to be so for the close future. Germany has the upper hand on Russia, Belgium, France and Italy, but not on Britain.

Europe & immediate vicinity > everywhere else

Europe != Britain.
Again, you seem to miss my point: Germany can't do anything to Britain, but Britain has things that Germany wants. Britain is an obvious and safe position of strength if Germany doesn't want to stay at war and lacking colonies.

Ok.

Britain alone? Yes.
Together with the US? I could see that happening, depending on how those 20 years went.

As a person with decades' foresight, no. But as a person in 1917 who's just seen Gallipoli, which was still being used as an important case study when planning D-Day (and also being held up as a reason it couldn't work), it would seem ridiculous.

Except,this existed for D-Day and at Gallipoli there was that:

The next day, the British ambassador left Constantinople and a British naval squadron off the Dardanelles bombarded the outer defensive forts at Kum Kale and Seddulbahir.
.....
prior to the Ottoman entry into the war the straits had been closed and in November they began to mine the waterway.
.....
Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, proposed a naval attack on the Dardanelles, based in part on erroneous reports of Ottoman troop strength.
......
Ottoman artillery along the coast.
....
The Ottomans prepared to repel a landing on either side of the Straits,
.....
All agreed that the most effective form of defence was to hold the high ground on the ridges of the peninsula
.....
reinforcements could be moved swiftly to danger points; troops were moved at night to avoid detection by Allied aircraft.
....
The delay of the landings by the British allowed Liman von Sanders and other German officers such as Colonel Hans Kannengiesser, supported by III Corps commander Esat Pasha, time to prepare their defences.[38] Liman von Sanders later noted, "the British allowed us four good weeks of respite for all this work before their great disembarkation ... This respite just sufficed for the most indispensable measures to be taken." [78] Roads were constructed, small boats assembled to carry troops and equipment across the narrows, beaches were wired and improvised mines were constructed from torpedo warheads. Trenches and gun emplacements were dug along the beaches, while troops went on route marches to avoid lethargy.[78] Mustafa Kemal, whose 19th Division was vital to the defensive scheme, observed the beaches and awaited signs of an invasion from his post at Boghali, near Maidos.[79] The Ottomans created a small air force with German assistance and had four aircraft operating around Çanakkale in February, conducting reconnaissance and army co-operation sorties[80] and by early April they had established an airfield near Gallipoli

et cetera, et cetera

Basically, my point is, D-Day and Gallipoli != Landing in northern Germany during WW1.
And therefore not only is that not less likely than a German Invasion of the Isles, but I dare say that with France having fallen but the US in the war, one can expect it to happen.

No.

Yes.

Yes, even comparatively. Trust me, it took me a bloody long time to reach that point. Basically, the time between Gott Mit Uns and OELaB.

Except they aren't.

Then surely Britain has nothing to fear? What was with the naval arms race, then? Germany would be silly to worry about the possibility of an amphibious landing at this point. Britain would be silly not to worry about keeping ahead of Europe's navies.

The United Kingdom had the biggest navy in the world[1] and so in accord with Wilhelm II’s enthusiasm for an expanded German navy, and his own strong desires, Grand Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, Secretary of State of the German Imperial Naval Office, championed four Fleet Acts between 1898 and 1912 to greatly expand the German High Seas Fleet. The German aim was to build a fleet that would be 2/3 the size of the British navy.

That was the plan at the race. 2/3.

British defense policy was to ensure that the British navy was at least the size of the next two largest navies[5] as outlined in the Two Power Standard. This was not the case as the war approached, thanks to financial and logistical constraints, and due to the speed of expansion of the German navy and the US Navy. Britain did, however, boast the largest and mightiest navy when war broke out in 1914.

That was why the British built their ships. They never were directly threatened.

Britain managed to build Dreadnought in just 14 months[5] and by the start of the First World War Britain had 49 battleships, compared with Germany's 29.[5] Although the naval race continued it was economically impossible for the Germans to close the gap before the war broke out.

Together the US and Germany had more than Britain. So the US has at least 21 battleships of its own. 21 Battleships that would now be used in Britain, making it 70 against less than 30. Germany has much to build if they want to win.

In 1912, the German chancellor Bethmann Hollweg ended the naval arms race. His aim was to secure an understanding with the British to end the more and more isolated position of Germany. The increasing size of the Russian army compelled the Germans to spend more money on their army and therefore less on the navy.

Now, in this world, land warfare prevailed. Germany defeated all of its enemies except for Britain by land. Now try to convince the government to move money away from the glorious STRONK german army that defeated all its enemies in the field and to give it to the sailors close to mutiny.

This initiative led to the Haldane Mission. Germany proposed a treaty in which Germany would accept British naval superiority in exchange of a British neutrality in a war in which Germany could not be said to be the aggressor. This proposal was rejected by Britain. For Britain there was nothing to gain by such a treaty since their naval superiority was already secure,

So once more we sea that Britain was secure in its superiority.

Now remember that Germany, while not having to fight too much (unless it doesn't make peace with Japan, in which case it does have to fight, sometime in the future) still has to occupy basically half of Europe on their own.
That takes manpower and that takes money. Money and manpower that still can't be used in the navy, or to produce things for the navy.

I'm talking about before it did.

Just before it did, it had to anyway.

What?

Agreed.

My point is that you can attribute much more to land than it actually was for you. A-L was mostly German once France got it back. Poznan which the Nazis returned to Germany rather than leave in the General-Gouvernement, and for which they were originally voted in, was mostly polish, IIRC. Colonies which people fought over so much, cost the countries more money than they were worth. So Italy may have lost cheap lands, but that doesn't make it less a loss. That's my point.

You can, but you can do the same to lands that you've gained.

I guess.

Greece wasn't. Serbia wasn't.
But ok, in that case, Balkans should indeed be together with Anatolia.

Greece and Serbia didn't border the Ottomans, and I'm not sure they want to be taking lands that'll require cooperation with Bulgaria to get to.

Ah, right, forgot Eastern Macedonia being Bulgarian. Scratch that then, I surrender on this single point.

Mhm.

Bloody hell.

top kek

[/quote]
What's so funny, m8?

Historical RP Advertisement Form
RP name: When Everything Changed: 2001
Link to RP: Shameless Advertising

OP/co-OPs of RP: Epraria, ZATAK and Republic of Vietnam

Genre: Adventure, Political
Elaboration on RP: Its a collaboration of several rps, as well as taking some queues from Forge of Empires. It's a very AH world, with a Aleyskan dominated North America, a Korean Empire and a German Confederstion.
Target RPer group: Nation Rpers, People who rp realistically
Other info: Come join us!
429429 (marks this as an advertisement form)

Your link leads to page 15 of your thread. This one should be directly to the OP.

I want to read all of that....

But I won't.

Heh.

[Alleniana]

Hard to acheive? Pssh, butterfly armies

Butterflies are things that happen after your PoD and are affected by it.
You can't butterfly your PoD. That's like saying that you want to breath in your vacuum. Don't try, the results will be horrible, probably painful, death.

I mean the butterfly that caused the POD will be bigger.

But leaning towards Germany, because there's pretty much nothing except colonies and navy going for the Brits, and if the colonies get taken by land or something, which is not quite ridiculous, then the navy is ded too.

De jure white peace, though.

Yeah, some weird stuff. Probably something like back in the times of the Khedivate, except less weird.


Except that the treaty ports pretty much control Chinese trade, so Germany would be essentially handing over everything of China that's useful to a coloniser to Japan if it surrendered all the ports. Also, considering the disdain the Brits and French had for the Japanese, I wouldn't be surprised if they handed over the keys to Germans without waiting for the Japanese.

*murica* TIME TO REMOVE SOME COMMIES

So you have no /actual/ reply?

Other than saying that Sakhalin is irrelevant and that I'll probably assign it according to what looks better on the map, no.
edit: probably Japan. That straight line through the middle is... ehh, to say the least.

Well, then, Germany would have to lay claim to Indochina first. And handing over things to someone you were supposed to beat in a war is bad for prestige.

Well, even that ended with actual fighting.

Note how the war ended by war between two countries that border each other. In this case we are talking about possibly almost literally half the world being between the two opponents.
Logistically speaking, Germany will not do anything against Japan before having found peace with the British. As otherwise it can't do anything by sea within the next decade or two.

So unless Germany goes for a crazy march through Persia, through Baluchistan, through all of India, then through Burma, followed by finally possibly encountering the Japanese in Indochina, they can't fight Japan before Britain.
And then they'd have to find some way to reach the other places without going by sea, if they haven't defeated the Brits yet.

Basically, the german position will decline in time as Japan creates fait accompli-s.

Germany not being able to do anything against Japan does not equal Japan not being able to do anything against Germany. That would still have combat involved, and would still not be nearly as profitable as literal freebies.

Hmm, fair point.
Time, but not too long. The difference is being able to trade with the European continent and not.

Not out of thin air, but out of others' pockets.

For that they have to first be in those others' pockets.
Also, you talked about reparations....
Do you know that Germany finished paying off the WW1 debt in 2010? Yes, less than ten years ago. It was October, so it isn't even five.
That a bit more than half of the demanded reparations weren't actually ever supposed to be paid by Germany, but rather create a bigger number?
Let's also not forget that the actual commission for the reparations was created in 1921 and that changes to them were made in '24 and '30. There's also the Hoover Moratorium, but I guess all of those happen far enough after this discussion.

My point is, even if reparations are that sustaining long-term, it takes time to get them moving properly and they rely on the economic situation of the country paying.

Reparations are indeed less significant than trade, but they're still there.

And considering how well it did even so, its current access to breadbaskets everywhere is going to quickly alleviate that. Britain has no such equivalent for its own resource shortages.

It can, now. It can trade with France and Soviet Russia and Iran and Spain and Egypt if it so wants.

Soviet Russia is in a Civil war and IIRC not even fully recognized. Iran is far away, and to an extent so are Spain and Egypt.
France.... I guess they can trade through France. But I wouldn't be surprised at passive resistance at shipments to Germany.

Didn't realise the war ended when it did, forget Russia then. But Spain, Egypt, Iran; beforehand, they would have had to sail around France and through the Mediterranean, which is patently impossible, or fight their way through the Balkans and the British in the middle east. Now, they can simply ship it in via land. Controlling the sea becomes less relevant when the chokepoints on land are dissolved.

Economic significance. Assuming that the smaller partner in bilateral trade always suffers more when trade is cut, then USA and UK will suffer more.

But is that assumption true? (I'm actually asking, Economics as such aren't my field of expertise).
Also, wouldn't that strengthen economic ties between the US and the UK... hmm.... could we maybe see a :notEu: of the Anglophone areas sometime in the far future of this timeline, if it works politically?
Though back to topic: You only account for trade lost directly with Britain. Even though they can trade through France, international trade will still be suffering a heavy loss, especially should Britain move the blockade further west to include France.
(Though honestly I'm not a 100% sure that they'd be able to do that.)

I would assume so, nearly always. It seems to be a pattern, though perhaps there's exceptions, or it's just luck or something. And yes, USA and UK would strengthen links, definitely, regardless of what happens.

Anyway, international trade would be taking a hit, but if you compare their situation from before the treaty, it's obviously improved, whereas for Britain, it's probably worsened (but for the USA). Even if Britain's overall situation is better, Germany's is improving and Britain's is probably not improving, if not outright declining.

And this group did passably well in north Africa, as well as nearly everywhere else. Now, remove several of their biggest enemies, and surely they'll perform better against those remaining, no?

That group got pushed back by 1915. That isn't as well as everywhere else. And then it was continuously pushed back even deeper.
But my point is, we don't remove any enemies this group had.

No, we don't remove enemies from that group, but we remove enemies of its friends, so that its friends can come to help it.

They weren't in the campaign, but they drew troops and resources away from it.

True. Except that troops die and resources get lost so: amount invested everywhere else > amount moveable to Suez
In addition any and all troops moved to Suez would have been in combat for a long time, and all of in in a different climate and terrain, if they'd be coming straight from Russia even a massive change.
Of course, the same applies for any British reinforcements to there, which I consider more than likely.
Also, you'd have the US who already are invested in this war. With the Summer offensive succeeding US troops would be dropped off in Suez instead. Or behind German lines, I guess.

The number of troops freed from fronts for Germany, Ottomans, Bulgaria & A-H > the number of troops freed for Britain and USA (and their other little allies like Portugal who I forget )

Europe & immediate vicinity > everywhere else

Europe != Britain.
Again, you seem to miss my point: Germany can't do anything to Britain, but Britain has things that Germany wants. Britain is an obvious and safe position of strength if Germany doesn't want to stay at war and lacking colonies.

Germany will be able to do things to Britain sooner than Britain will be able to do things to Germany, is my point.

As a person with decades' foresight, no. But as a person in 1917 who's just seen Gallipoli, which was still being used as an important case study when planning D-Day (and also being held up as a reason it couldn't work), it would seem ridiculous.

Except,this existed for D-Day and at Gallipoli there was that:

The next day, the British ambassador left Constantinople and a British naval squadron off the Dardanelles bombarded the outer defensive forts at Kum Kale and Seddulbahir.
.....
prior to the Ottoman entry into the war the straits had been closed and in November they began to mine the waterway.
.....
Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, proposed a naval attack on the Dardanelles, based in part on erroneous reports of Ottoman troop strength.
......
Ottoman artillery along the coast.
....
The Ottomans prepared to repel a landing on either side of the Straits,
.....
All agreed that the most effective form of defence was to hold the high ground on the ridges of the peninsula
.....
reinforcements could be moved swiftly to danger points; troops were moved at night to avoid detection by Allied aircraft.
....
The delay of the landings by the British allowed Liman von Sanders and other German officers such as Colonel Hans Kannengiesser, supported by III Corps commander Esat Pasha, time to prepare their defences.[38] Liman von Sanders later noted, "the British allowed us four good weeks of respite for all this work before their great disembarkation ... This respite just sufficed for the most indispensable measures to be taken." [78] Roads were constructed, small boats assembled to carry troops and equipment across the narrows, beaches were wired and improvised mines were constructed from torpedo warheads. Trenches and gun emplacements were dug along the beaches, while troops went on route marches to avoid lethargy.[78] Mustafa Kemal, whose 19th Division was vital to the defensive scheme, observed the beaches and awaited signs of an invasion from his post at Boghali, near Maidos.[79] The Ottomans created a small air force with German assistance and had four aircraft operating around Çanakkale in February, conducting reconnaissance and army co-operation sorties[80] and by early April they had established an airfield near Gallipoli

et cetera, et cetera

Basically, my point is, D-Day and Gallipoli != Landing in northern Germany during WW1.
And therefore not only is that not less likely than a German Invasion of the Isles, but I dare say that with France having fallen but the US in the war, one can expect it to happen.

My point is
"Russell Weigley has written that analysis of the campaign before World War II led to "a belief among most of the armed forces of the world" that amphibious assaults could not succeed against modern defences and that arguably this perception continued until the Normandy Landings in June 1944 despite some successful examples of amphibious operations earlier in the war, such as those in Italy, and at Tarawa and in the Gilbert Islands in the Pacific."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_ ... #Aftermath

Then surely Britain has nothing to fear? What was with the naval arms race, then? Germany would be silly to worry about the possibility of an amphibious landing at this point. Britain would be silly not to worry about keeping ahead of Europe's navies.

The United Kingdom had the biggest navy in the world[1] and so in accord with Wilhelm II’s enthusiasm for an expanded German navy, and his own strong desires, Grand Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, Secretary of State of the German Imperial Naval Office, championed four Fleet Acts between 1898 and 1912 to greatly expand the German High Seas Fleet. The German aim was to build a fleet that would be 2/3 the size of the British navy.

That was the plan at the race. 2/3.

British defense policy was to ensure that the British navy was at least the size of the next two largest navies[5] as outlined in the Two Power Standard. This was not the case as the war approached, thanks to financial and logistical constraints, and due to the speed of expansion of the German navy and the US Navy. Britain did, however, boast the largest and mightiest navy when war broke out in 1914.

That was why the British built their ships. They never were directly threatened.

Britain managed to build Dreadnought in just 14 months[5] and by the start of the First World War Britain had 49 battleships, compared with Germany's 29.[5] Although the naval race continued it was economically impossible for the Germans to close the gap before the war broke out.

Together the US and Germany had more than Britain. So the US has at least 21 battleships of its own. 21 Battleships that would now be used in Britain, making it 70 against less than 30. Germany has much to build if they want to win.

In 1912, the German chancellor Bethmann Hollweg ended the naval arms race. His aim was to secure an understanding with the British to end the more and more isolated position of Germany. The increasing size of the Russian army compelled the Germans to spend more money on their army and therefore less on the navy.

Now, in this world, land warfare prevailed. Germany defeated all of its enemies except for Britain by land. Now try to convince the government to move money away from the glorious STRONK german army that defeated all its enemies in the field and to give it to the sailors close to mutiny.

This initiative led to the Haldane Mission. Germany proposed a treaty in which Germany would accept British naval superiority in exchange of a British neutrality in a war in which Germany could not be said to be the aggressor. This proposal was rejected by Britain. For Britain there was nothing to gain by such a treaty since their naval superiority was already secure,

So once more we sea that Britain was secure in its superiority.

Now remember that Germany, while not having to fight too much (unless it doesn't make peace with Japan, in which case it does have to fight, sometime in the future) still has to occupy basically half of Europe on their own.
That takes manpower and that takes money. Money and manpower that still can't be used in the navy, or to produce things for the navy.

See, the difference is that Germany didn't even consider that its army had to keep up with the British one. That was an absolute given. Not a snowball's chance in hell, that head to head, Britain's land forces could prevail over the Germans.

Just before it did, it had to anyway.

What?

Just before France surrendered, it had to surrender. Don't worry about before France surrendering, because the POD is a few weeks before that.

You can, but you can do the same to lands that you've gained.

Greece and Serbia didn't border the Ottomans, and I'm not sure they want to be taking lands that'll require cooperation with Bulgaria to get to.

Ah, right, forgot Eastern Macedonia being Bulgarian. Scratch that then, I surrender on this single point.

we are reenacting WWI

top kek

What's so funny, m8?

the scope, size and usefulness of this discussion