The only way you'd get this is ASBs, and with that caveat established, anything is thus possible. It would never occur under realistic setting though.
They dead, bro.
Massive and agressive aid, for sure. There's no doubt about it that Reagan would do as much as possible to ensure Non-Communist forces would be able to win there.
If she was in port on the 26th at Hong Kong, then I think there needs to be a return to the drawing board with regards to what Carrier survived because more than likely she wouldn't be able to get out of port in time when the Missles started flying.
MelvinHun wrote: nope
Another sockpuppet bites the dust lol
It wouldn't be a war winner, but it could result in political pressure to increase the amount of AA defenses for the homeland. That would probably have a tangible effect on the war effort by making the Replacement Crisis in late 1944 a bit worse, which could in turn effect the Ardennes Battle as well as pace of Allied advance later on.
As an aside on this point, later in the war the Japanese could increase their fire balloon efforts, which IOTL did result in a powerline at the Hanford Nuclear reactor temporarily being taken offline. Luckily for the Allies, the plant had auxiliary units and thus nothing came of this. Had there been a rather large swarm of such weapons that landed that day, however, perhaps it is possible to cause a reactor meltdown by cutting the power supply. This would result in such things as forcing information about Manhattan out in the open, causing radioactive fallout in the Pacific Northwest, and delaying the development of the Atomic Bomb.
Basically, the only way to get the Brits out would have been a peace treaty - impossible to starve them out.
As for the matter at hand...
Depends on how you define them "winning."
For instance, if you mean something like conquering the USSR? No way. Not happening short of ASB.
Some sort of treaty earlier in the war? not impossible.
But, again, depends how you define victory.
If you go by their "plans," however, victory is completely and utterly impossible.
Quoting this to reignite interest.
With regards to starving England, an easy PoD for that is no Plan Z as well as having the Germans discover the issues with their torpedos sooner. That latter issue alone cost the Germans around 100 merchantmen kills, along with numerous capital ships during the first year or so of the war. The former included such vessels as the HMS Ark Royal (Aircraft carrier), HMS Nelson (Battleship), and HMS Warspite (Battleship, this one twice). IOTL, it took until 1943 for the Kriegsmarine to reach its 300 U-Boat goal and by that time the US was fully mobilized to outproduce any losses sustained. No disruptions due to Plan Z, and it's likely that by 1941 (Which incidently was a period that the Germans did manage to achieve their monthly tonnage goals in April, and came close in several other months) they will be in a position to starve out the Brits over the year.
To take a detour for a second on this point, HMS Nelson had Churchill himself onboard, so its entirely possible to remove him and enforce a Halifax peace come May/June of 1940. Further, HMS Warspite was the only modern Battleship in the Med until HMS Valiant entered the theater in August of 1940, so that gives the Italians a firm advantage in modern battleships for several months. Finally, the loss of HMS Ark Royal leaves a hole in the British carrier force which, meaning they might not have a carrier on hand to deal with Bismarck come early 1941. Any one of these by itself serves as a good PoD.
With regards to the Soviet Union, an easy PoD concerns the 2nd SS Division "Das Reich". IOTL, the Soviet 32nd Rifle Division beat them by exactly one day to Borodino, allowing them to set up a defensive position that stopped the German advance. Just one day quicker advance, and the highway to Moscow is busted open. Further adding on to this, have Army Group North reduce their Tikhivin Operation to clearing the western bank of the Volkhov River, and Leningrad will also fall due to starvation within a matter of months.
You'd probably need one of two (Or possibly both) things to happen.
1) The Soviet reserve system was in absolute shambles by 1980. Their active "A" Divisions were top notch, don't get me wrong, but without the ability to mobilize and deploy "B" and "C" class divisions to make up losses and hold ground the Soviet strategy of Deep Operations falls apart. Fixing this means the Soviets will be more confident to be aggressive, and to strike since they now have a means of success.
2) Somewhat of an addendum to the above in part, have the Soviets invade Poland in 1980 during the Solidarity Crisis. Prior to the declaration of martial law, the situation was quickly unraveling and the Polish Communists were seeking help from the Soviets. The "Red Army" tried to mobilize, and utterly failed so Warsaw and Moscow were both forced to consider other options. This led to the aforementioned Martial Law, which ended resolving the issue for the most part. Had the Soviets been able to organize their forces and make a go at it in a replay of Czechslovakia, the West will definitely respond with sanctions. Given how dependent the Soviets were growing upon Western economic support, primarily in the form of grain imports, the Warsaw Pact is going to be very desperate inside of two years as the effects of a massive reduction in the food supply are felt. This makes them more willing to consider force 1983, and the makes both sides more hostile by then as well due to the politics at play in such. Add in a hardliner coup, and it becomes overwhelmingly likely.
I hereby annouce I will not be voting due to a lack of meme categories.
Nazi plans were rather incoherant, to say the least. Hitler envisioned the Urals as the final border, while the Wehrmacht prepared itself for the A-A-Volga line, and finally the diplomatic service purposed the ultimate border to be Yenisei River and then onwards along the Tian Shan mountains to Afghanistan. Personally, I think they'd realistically achieve the Wehrmacht's aims the fastest, and then gradually achieve Hitler's. I don't ever forsee the borders proposed with the Japanese being realized sans intergalatic furry aerial mammals.
As for what would occur to the inhabitants, the Jews, avowed Communists (Think party officials and not your average peasant), and other such groupings were destined for the death camps. The Slavs as a whole, were not however according to modern research I've seen. Large swathes of Poland and all of Bohemia during the War were declared "Aryan" and the inhabitants slated for partial Germanizing. By the middle of the war Nazi racial theorists close to the Reich's ruling elite were even starting to change their tune on the average Soviet slav, interestingly. Hitler declared Ukranian women to be racially acceptable, as an example of this change (Although this may have just been real politik due to the fact around a million babies were produced during the German occupation).
Ghenghis Khan dies sometime around 1200, thus averting the Mongol conquests. The Jin eventually start to collapse, allowing for the Song to advance northwards and reclaim their former territory.
ASB, but still interesting.
First thing that comes to mind is that a lack of Britain will result in a stronger Roman position in the Trans-Rhine region, possibly a Roman Germania. Presuming the Empire still collapses, the Germanic tribes will likely leave a much larger cultural legacy in OTL France since the Saxons will likely end up there.
Just so we're clear, you're proposing a state brought about by the unification of the Third Reich as well as USSR correct? It'll help me explain better if I have a clear direction you're taking this.
Not even Thermonuclear warfare can stump the Trump. :D
If you're presuming the balkanization occurs within the last ~80 years, basing successors on terms of existing states is simply impossible. The States within the Union have become so utterly dependent on Federal aid to help beef up their budgets that any major cuts to that (And assuming a balkanization, ALL will be lost) would lead to an economic collapse of any state. Even Texas, with all of its energy resources and growing tax base, still relies on a third of its funding coming from the Feds.
So tl; dr Balkanization as proposed is ASB.
At the time of the D-day, Operation Bagration in the East had been two weeks in motion. Any advantage for the Germans from beating the allies at Normandy would not make it in time to the Eastern Front to change the result of this operation, which ended with the liberation of Belarus, the complete destruction of Army Group Center and the encirclement of the whole Army Group North in the Baltic. This sealed the outcome of the war to a Soviet Victory.
The US and Great Britain would have not abandoned the war after a defeat in Normandy, not at all. The are just two possible outcomes to this scenario: the Soviet Union wins the war, seizing control of the whole continental Europe (except Norway and Sweden, maybe Italy) without stopping at the Pyrenees, invading Spain; the US and Great Britain eventually disembarc in France as the Germans have to move more and more divisions to the East, resulting in another Cold War with more countries controlled by the soviets, which control the whole Germany, Austria, the Benelux and Greece.
There has been a lot of effort during the Cold War to make the public think the US won the WWII and defeated the Nazis by themselves. They didn't, and neither did the Soviet Union. But the contribution to victory was by far leaded by the Soviet Union, and since the Nazi defeat at Stalingrad, it was inevitable that the Soviets were going to send to Wehrmacht back to Germany, sooner or later.
Anon, you didn't even read your own link. Bagration started on June 22nd, over two weeks after Overlord occurred. You'd also be wise to pay attention to the fact that the majority of the Wehrmacht's reserve in armor and mechanized divisions were deployed to France to face the then expected assault. A failed D-Day means the Heer will have ample breathing space to transfer the forces East, and thus stall the Soviet advance. There's also plenty of things the onsite forces could do in this ATL to counter Bagration, such as abandoning Vitebsk and establishing a new line along the Berezina. And no, AGN was not encircled until October of 1944, it was only Hitler that allowed the Courland situation to form.
First PoD is the standardization of German armored production in 1938 in favor of the Panzer IV over the III, granting them greater numbers of the more verastile IV as well as setting the precendent at leats for the Tank forces of favoring one or a few designs instead of the OTL approach of making multiple different designs that largely ended up ineffective due to lack of sufficient development and production. Instead of Tigers and Panthers, we get large numbers of sloped armored IVs equipped with OTL Panther guns and using more powerful engines to handle the additional weight.
Next is that the Iron Guard is more effectively decapitated in late 1938 during the purges by the Romanian government, who then go on to reaffirm their alliance with Poland. When Hitler attacks in 1939, Romania joins the Anglo-French in declaring War on Germany. Romanian reinforcements, better deployment of Polish forces, and large scale Entente aid via Constanta allows for a longer, as well as much more costly campaign in Poland for the Germans. Hitler is able to compel Hungary to attack Translyvania, while the Soviet intervention in Poland (A week later in OTL due to slower Wehrmacht advance) is also done in conection with an attack into Bessarabia. A stronger Polish defense combined with a likewise stalwart Romanian defense in Bukovina and Foscani-Braila line inflict startingly casualties on Stalin as well. This compels him to put off his moves against Finland until the spring and nearly causes the USSR to declare war on the Anglo-French.
The spring 1940 campaigns go mostly OTL for the Germans, despite their heavier losses the previous fall to less material available for the Entente's own use and no ability to evacuate the 100,000+ Polish soldiers that got to the West in OTL (Thanks to the Soviets attacking Constanta). The Soviets, however, face an insanely bloody campaign against the Finns. This is due to the respite the Finns recieved giving them time to fix their artillery and anti-tank production, the spring thaw turning Southern Finland into a marsh land, and the Germans being delayed in imposing the weapons ban to them and thus allowing large numbers of Italian as well as Hungarian weapons to be imported (including ultra-modern fighters, which prove horrific to the Red Air Force). Enraged at a casualty rate double that of OTL, Stalin orders an occupation of all of Finland, which ties down significant Red Army forces in a anti-insurgency campaign that proves brutal. With twin disasters against the Romanian-Polish alliance and now Finland, Stalin begins another purge in late 1940 that leaves the Red Army totally unprepared when the Axis come knocking in 1941.
So basically any set-up pre-1939 could be accepted?
Actually, this is somewhat OTL. The Anglicans IIRC are currently in communion with Constantinople (Orthodox), and have been for a while. So if you want a half-way Orthodox England, arguabably accomplished already.
As for a full Orthodox England, you'd have to go back at least as far as 1066 if not earlier.
Are you talking about in the past, or in the current time of market upheveal? An answer depends upon what exactly you are asking.