I just got this idea today, so I want to see what people think of it. **** Basics: Nazi Germany wins the Battle of Britain, and using its air power pulverizes the Southern cities of Britain. After several months, British moral is extremely low, and Germany finally lands some of its forces on the island. Not very successfully, due to poor ships. But with strong air support they are slowly able to increase their beachhead. Several million British citizens and government flee other countries in the Commonwealth and the US. (Every available ship is used/confiscated for this exodus) The British Navy eventually retreats to Halifax and its Caribbean ports. Japan also attacks Britain earlier then our time, as it sees Britain collapse, taking all of its Chinese colonies. A puppet government cedes all colonies to Germany and Japan. The government in exile refuses and tells its soldiers to fight on. Germany attacks Russia, at the same time. Goes more slowly due to fewer troops. Japan joins that war early in 1942 instead of attacking the US. Russia crumbles as a coherent country in 1943 after the third battle of Moscow. Germany has control of virtually all of Europe, and part of the Middle East. Italy, having faced less competition controls most of North Africa, including Egypt and part of the Middle East. Vichy France retains control of its North African colonies. Japan eventually gains control of virtually all of China (has trouble keeping it peaceful though), Siberia, and most of South East Asia. It was stopped at India though. A desperate Britain, hurriedly trained every available person (many of them refugees) and fought Japan to a standstill. (The threat of Imperial Japan is one of the few things keeping India on the Allies side.) *** Anyways the year is the late 1950's. The remaining democracies and their allies are the US, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, India, Australia, Iceland (a protectorate of the US), Mexico, a few Latin American countries, all of the Caribbeans, and some former African colonies in the south. (The last four are kept friendly by money and threats) The Allies are heavily militarized, due to the constant threat of the Axis. Paranoia of Axis spies is rampant, the economies are under heavy government control to keep the military infrastructure going. And the most coveted secret are the nuclear bombs being stockpiled in the deserts of the US, and the northern prairies of Canada. The Axis powers are Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Vichy France, and Nazi England (Spain and Turkey were late comers, Vichy and England were gradually allowed more independence). Imperial Japan is also a member, but they don't really care about European affairs. They are obviously dictatorships, militaristic, and at least in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan use a lot of slave labour. They don't have nuclear bombs, but they have large rockets (far better than the Allies) and are slightly more advanced in certain fields. But they suffer from a lot of internal dissent. Most of South America is allied loosely with Nazi Germany. Even countries in Latin America and the Caribbeans that are allied with the Allies have sizable minorities that are sympathetic to the Nazi's. Most of central Africa, central Asia, and the former Russian territory beyond Moscow is virtually uncontrolled. Warlords rule the land. They are heavily supplied by whichever major power they are currently allied with. Ireland is independent. It works closely with Germany to protect itself, but its neutral. Major spy area. Espionage is rampant all over the world. The story will focus on the coming war between the Allies and the Axis. Japan has finally settled most of the major rebel groups in their core region, and is eying the Philippines, New Zealand and Australia. The British exiles which form a large portion of the military, want to return to their home country. And are using all of their influence to end the cease fire between the Commonwealth countries and Germany. Italy wants to pacify central Africa, and is willing to drag Germany along for the ride. Less seriously the South American countries are gearing up to fight each other, as rebels on both sides openly revolt. The Axis may step in, the Allies definitely will. If any of these groups make a move all of their allies will join in, and its WW3 time. But no one knows exactly what the other side has, only that everyone will be seriously hurt if it comes to a war. The main characters would be soldiers, guarding the borders and making sorties in uncontrolled territories. Spies supplying the rebels, and trying to discover exactly what is behind the Manhattan Project. And politicians maneuvering their countries so that they have the best possible advantage in the coming war. *** This is pretty fast and loose so far, like I said I just thought of it today. I do know a lot about WW2 so research isn't a problem. So what do people think? Any areas you think I should focus on, is it too broad, too boring, too exciting? This is very much a work in progress so I'll listen to anything.
Just one thing. It's strongly thought that the Nazis were close-ish to getting nuclear weapons by the time they lost the war. They were certainly working on it. If they had done as well as your storyline suggests in war-winning, I'm almost certain that they'd have put together a Bomb. My 0.02
Actually they weren't very close. The head scientist was on completely the wrong path, no one sure if this was on purpose or he just made a mistake. He didn't think that heavy water was necessary, and believed they needed about two hundred more pounds of uranium or plutonium then they needed in reality. So my thought is they would eventually decide to focus on known sciences, rather than a pie in the sky dream. This relies on the Allies keeping their own research secret. And it will slow the Allies own production down in the book. But it seems possible. At best the Nazi's would only have just gained the knowledge and not have nearly as many bombs as the Allies.
On second thought, Powertodream, thanks. You just helped give me the idea for the plot. The Nazi's had given up on atomic bombs, but caught wind of the secret nuclear project the Allies had. So after several years of trying to get real information, they finally get it. Now the Allies discover this after the Nazi's have had a year to really advance their project. The Allies must use all their resources to slow down the Nazi atomic bomb project, as they prepare for all out war. Resistance fighters, spies, covert attacks, the works. Great fun.
Sounds like a great story idea and I can tell that you've got more research on the matter than I. However, I think the tricky part of this story will be setting up all of the information as you've described it and then narrowing down the story enough to where we are following a few main characters. I'll be interested to see which characters you go with because the world you have created is very intriguing. Let me know when you get something down on it, I'd love to read some of it. zb
Thanks for the vote of confidence zerobytes. I agree with you. I have to narrow this down enough that I'm not all over the map. Thats why I like the idea of the Allies putting in an end run operation to damage as much of the Nazi infrastructure as possible as they mobilize their armies. That lets me keep it limited to freedom fighters and espionage agents, with a high ranking official to deal with the politics. I'll probably start writing something in the next month or two and will post a bit here.
well, as for narrowing it down, I think you have two choices: you can have a narrative introduction explaining the turn of events, or you could slowly reveal the backstory as through allusions and perhaps flashbacks. Personally, I prefer the latter, but that is only my writing style and preference. also, small technical note: Japan couldn't have attacked Britain. they didn't have any planes that could range that far, and they'd be flying over Russia or other Asian countries that they were enemies with. Japan can still fit into the whole scenario, just not in attacking anything in the ETO. Finally: Hitler was notorious for pushing extraordinary or lunatic projects, to the point that his Minister of Defense risked his life several times to stop them. I just read a whole book on "deranged designs of WWII", and about 90% of them were Nazi projects that were personally endorsed by Hitler. Of those, the verdict was that almost all of them would have failed in reality. However, the "Diebner Bomb" (the Nazi nuke) was one of the few that had advanced to the point where there was dispute over whether one had been tested, and also was one of the few that would have been a reasonable sucess. No, I didn't just read the book and believe that I was a know-it-all. I had known about a few of the projects that Hitler pushed for a few years, mostly tanks, since when I got interested in WWII. But, of course, this doesn't ruin the story, and I dont mean to over-criticize you. Just helping smooth out the plot.
Thanks for the critique Chase42. I did put a lot of thought into this so here's my rebuttal. But if you notice anything out of place please let me know. When I said Japan attacks Britain, I meant British colonies in Asia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Burma, etc. Britain itself, and its colonies outside of Asia never even see a Japanese plane, ship or soldier. As for the secret projects, Hitler did push for a lot of bizarre experiments. But from what I understand, the research into atomic weapons was being done at three different locations with virtually no attempt at co-operation. This greatly hindered the project. Also some of the higher ups initially did not believe the resources needed to put into a possible super weapon because they thought the war would be over by 1943. After 1943 they simply didn't have the resources. Hitler might have wanted it, and money was consistently given to nuclear projects, but it did not get the same level of support that experimental tanks, jets, and rockets did. More importantly a lot of the advanced Nazi atomic research was occurring in Norway. The Allies learned in late 1943 that most of the cutting edge research material was being moved back to Germany for safety. So Norwegian fighters blew up the main ship, which also happened to be a passenger ship full of Norwegian civilians. The fighters were extremely upset when they learned that they had killed several hundred country men, and all they had blown up were machines to make heavy water. If German researchers were only at the point of making heavy water, they were no where near being able to create a nuclear bomb. The US and Britain were making heavy water in 1940, and it still took them four years of incredible effort to make the first atomic bombs. Something I didn't mention in my write-up is that Hitler dies in 1945. Thats why Germany didn't keep pressing forward at full throttle, and it also means that the more bizarre, and fruitless experiments are dropped. Following our history, the Germans would still be about three years away from making an atomic bomb, if they did a crash course with resources similar to the Manhattan Project. Which having defeated Europe they didn't need to bother with. They already had rockets that could conceivably destroy entire city blocks and were almost impossible to stop. Jet planes, which no one else had. Some of the best tanks in the world. And in nearly everything else that existed at the time had at least a level of parity. Without the need, and no real hope that it would work why keep trying to make a better bomb, that costs a lot of money?
wow, good rebuttal! I hadn't thought about many of your points, and I withdraw my criticism. ok, sorry, misunderstood you. ok, here's where I have to disagree. The Britsh had a jet near the end of the war, but that goes out the window because of the invasion. However, the Americans had the P-59 running sucessfully in pre-production form by the time the war in Japan ended. I believe that armored warfare in this situation would have began to sway in the direction of the Allies. Even without the british Centurion on the table (which was good enough to be in the UK's inventory until the 60s), Russian armor was getting increasingly better (bigger guns, more armor, large-scale production, still retained manuverability). Also, American armor was not always crap. The Pershing was ready for pre-production in early '44, but bereaucratic issues got it postponed, and it saw limited combat in march-april 45 in the ETO. Additionally, upgunned shermans were sucessful in killing panthers and even tigers more effectively. A single upgunned/uparmored "Super Pershing" took out a King Tiger from about 1000 yards by itself. Considering that the latter was an "anamoly" on the larger scale, the US was developing super-sized Pershings that were designed to combat the KT and even the Jagdtiger. But they were about a year at the least behind the T26. Finally, German armor was becoming tougher and stronger (the Jagdtiger probably would have been able to pierce battleship armor at close range) but by sacrificing speed, range, and gas milage. Now assuming that resources werent a problem for the Germans, faster more-numerous Pershings would have made piecemeal of the KT just as Shermans could overwhelm Panthers and even Tigers by sheer numbers. That doesnt take into account the improvements of the Pershing besides just strength. Not to mention the massive targets for aircraft that KTs and JTs make. The "Panzer Commander", general Hienz Guderian, once remarked that they couldve won the war by just building lots of Panzer 3s and 4s, with the occasional Panther. Not looking to start an argument, just sharing my knowledge on armor. Overall, the plot still works, and Germany would still have achieved all of this had they won the Battle of Britain, but I think that the Germans would have had somewhat less of an advantage.
ok, you know what, just ignore that last post. I dont think that this story would need to go into those kind of depths from the perspectives that your writing from, and maybe I'm just ranting about something that is a terribly trivial detail. Sorry. Now, it would be interesting to see what kind of armor would have developed had this scenario played out.
No worries. I was over simplifying the tanks, and I just didn't know about the P-59. Also I was able to do the rebuttal because I'm a university graduate. General history, and poli sci. With a personal emphasis on the Great Powers up until about post-WW2. Like I said in my original post, research wouldn't be a big problem for me. As for the weapons being used. I'm picturing massive dreadnoughts and carriers for the Allies, along B-52's being made about 5 years earlier. Long range strike capabilities would be paramount, as the best means to take the fight to the enemy and remove the rocket bases of Germany. Rockets would be used as well, but Germany would have a huge head start on the Allies. Most German rocket scientists fled to the US for asylum after our WW2, and formed the basis for the US space and rocket programs. Not so here. Anti-sub weapons would also be paramount to protect the long supply lines to South Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand, and territories in the Pacific. Infantry anti-tank weapons would also be developed to a fine art. Through the simple need to supply rebels with anti-tank weapons, they would be testing out their own systems and refining them. Any invasion force would have to face off against a huge number of tanks, and infantry is easier to ship over than tanks. So if infantry can face tanks on anything like equal terms it would be used and exploited. Germany and its allies would focus on tanks, close in air support, and rockets. It helped them win WW2 why change a good thing. The Tiger tanks would be refined and improved so instead of being lumbering monsters, they would be almost as heavy, but with better engines, lighter but just as powerful armour, less delicate systems, etc. It would still be quality over quantity, but with the time and resources they'd be much better and easier to produce. The Germans would also have improved subs, to attack the Allied shipping. With the British fleet escaping relatively unscathed, simply upgrading the systems would keep them as viable war machines, even if it is just as escorts. Throw in the US infrastructure and fleet, no country would be able to meet them on a level field. So Germany wouldn't try. It would try to cut the supply lines, and severely damage any invasion fleet. Its surface fleet would be minuscule in comparison and mainly be a means to impress its South American allies, and act as scouts. Japan would have slightly less capability at sea. In this scenario the Navy is second to the Army. They'd have a lot of carriers and surface ships. But most of the advances would be placed in fighters, and anti-infantry weapons, i.e. cluster bombs, grenades, mines, etc. South-East Asia was generally a horrible place for heavy armour, so tanks and the like wouldn't be used heavily. And most of the opposition for Japan after WW2 would be from insurgents without easy access to heavy weapons. At sea it would be in the same position as Germany. But it would have a very strong home fleet to face off against any possible Allied invasion. They'd be smaller ships, focusing more on firepower, rather than long range capabilities.
