FANDOM


Chat

This is the best page ever! Maby more on Jews, space, and a jewish reblion with a SS coupOctivian Marius (talk) 22:30, April 18, 2013 (UTC) All Hindus qualify for being Aryan, especially North Indians, you would know that if you looked into the classification of Aryan people. 1 Imperium Guy 17:54, October 12, 2011 (UTC)

And seeing how the Germans are still a threat in europe, the americans would probably launch D-Day, and then use the A bomb on Berlin and another city. The reason they used them on Japan in OTL was because the war in europe was over, and they wouldn't have gained anything by using it on a very obviously losing Germany. Azecreth 18:16, October 12, 2011 (UTC)

Look, the fact of the matter is that taking Stalingrad would not have won the Nazi's the war, not by a long shot. The Red Army had 34 million members at this point in time, compared to the Axis 11 million. The USSR is a big place, with about 200 million people total. Under a powerful guy like Stalin, there is now way the Soviets are being taken down by Germany and Friends, regardless of the small technological advantages they had. Then of course, even if the European portion of the Soviet Union was subdued, The United States and Britain pose an enourmous threat. The Americans would not be 'War weary' after defeating Japan in the Pacific-just the opposite trend was present after the war in OTL. Finally, with the United States in possesion of the nuclear bomb, there is no doubt they use it on a Germany lacking its own nuclear weapons and also occupying free and allied territory. Therefore, I deem this timeline to be ASB as of my posting of this rant.

Jazon Naparleon 03:23, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. Not only all of that, but pulling off an invasion of Britain? That's just not possible at that point.

It's just another German WII "wank." But, not far enough out there, I'm afraid, for an ASB tag. But I have a feeling it will be, eventually.

Lordganon 03:45, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

I'll raise the UK's invasion with him first.The UK was most vunrible in 1939 and 1940. The USSR had some colaborators like the Ukranians in the SS Galitzen corps and the Lakot Republic in western Russia.Oxfordshire 1972 01:14, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

Even at those dates, a UK invasion is a high-risk option with little chance of success.

Those collaborators were so minor that's its actually a bit funny you bring them up. And that they largely lasted a couple of months before more or less being "dissolved."

Lordganon 08:21, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the guys over at AH.Com have gone over Sea Lion a lot, and the general consensus is that assuming the Germans even make it to the beaches, they are beaten, and lose at least 2 divisions, along with the Rhine barges which were used for transport. It's a crippling blow for Germany.

And the Germans were never out to make friends with the Russians. There was only 1 idea that would have ensured some sort of collaboration, and that was the "Wall against Muscovy" idea propounded by Ribbentrop. To give the ethnic groups their own nations is the only way to get some sort iof support against Stalin, and even that may not be enough,. Azecreth 18:42, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the USA would have folded up like that. The USA would not surrender.Oxfordshire 1972 16:50, October 16, 2011 (UTC)


I can't see a map for the Soviet-German war, but realistically, Hitler could only annex up to the Urals. At that point the supply lines get to long, and you can't blitz through them. Azecreth 23:00, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, first of all, Kursk would have been a mightily hard battle to win. The Russians have 2,000 more tanks, nearly a million more men, 15,000 more artillery and AT guns, and prepared defense lines. It will be a tough nut for the Germans to crack. Reading about the Battle, the Russians were preparing for this fight for a while.

And once again, Hitler can only conquer up to the Ural Mountains. He can't get through them. Azecreth 14:42, October 28, 2011 (UTC)


The "early history" is a bit thin in my opinion. You need to make it plausible to me how Hitler has avoided the utter defeat at Stalingrad etc. Instead there is simply no mention of this (which was a crucial turning point in the OTL). So please convince me.

Possible Imagery

616051 A-futuristic-space-shuttle-awaits-launch

A-futuristic-space-shuttle-awaits-launch.

82.2.70.18 03:50, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

Some ideas?82.2.75.218 15:37, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Which I also added to.82.18.197.71 16:08, October 25, 2011 (UTC)


Others now added. 16:38, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Hindu people

They weren't considered subhumans by Nazis, they were considered as Aryans. 82.139.5.13 13:31, October 26, 2011

Muslims, mainly Sunnis in the middle east (Palestinians and S. Arabians were only considered 'upgraded jews') were considered anything close to subhumans. 1 Imperium Guy 13:39, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

Towns and spelling

I added a poasible list of major towns and checked the page's spelling over.86.29.66.75 15:21, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

Point of Divergence

Hey all, I was reading through this article (new community project? :p) and the rebellion pages and was wondering what exactly the PoD is for this timeline. If it is indeed a Nazi victory at Kursk, I have a question and a remark. Firstly, how could an underpowered (compared to 1941 divisional strength) Wehrmacht attack force defeat a prepared Soviet strong point of that size and with such elaborate fortifications? Secondly, during the battle, the Allies landed on Sicily and were already preparing for the invasion of the peninsula. With the Italians unable to fend for themselves, remember that Hitler would now have to divert the already sparse supplies and manpower (especially following an undoubtedly Pyrrhic victory at Kursk) to two fronts. Let me know what you think. --XterrorX 18:44, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, besides that, the Germans should not have been able to take Omsk. They would have to fight clear across the Ural Mountains, a daunting task even for a 1941 full strength Wehrmacht. It just isn't really possible. And don't say anything about Japan. The Japanese army was a joke. Their tanks sucked, and T-34's would rip through them like tin foil. even if the Japanese don't attack Pearl Harbor, they wont be able to take all of Siberia. Azecreth 19:32, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, full-strength Soviet and Japanese forces met before the final invasion of Manchukuo and we know how that ended. Plus, if Japan hadn't attacked the United States, president Roosevelt would most likely have staged an "incident" as casus belli for war (something like the Panay and Allison incidents perhaps) to satisfy the interventionist tendency. Also, I think that its a given that despite the defeat at Kursk, the Soviets will continue to increase their production behind the Urals and will still surpass the quotas of Germany as in OTL. As soon as the front line losses are compensated for, the Red Army will counter-attack at Kursk (or elsewhere more feasible) and put the German invader on the defensive for the rest of the war. The Nazis might reach, but won't cross the river Don. And although it depends on how many resources Hitler will now be able to use in an attempt to repel the Allies from southern Europe (as they will now lose more matériel and men in the east than in our time), I don't think much will change besides dates; Italy will fall and the Allies will open up another front in western Europe before the fight is over. --XterrorX 00:36, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

POD=*Battle of Kursk 1943: The localised use of nerve gas turns the tide in the Soviet Union.82.14.61.213 12:25, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

If the Germans play that way, then the Allies will too. The allies can outproduce the Germans in stuff like Mustard gas no problem. And if you mean Tabun, the Germans only made 12,500 tons of it before the Soviets seized the factory producing it. Introducing Nerve Gas will only mean a more brutal defeat for Germany, since the Allies will just use nerve gas as well. And localized usage will not stop the entire Red Army from ramming their tanks down Germany's throat. By this point the Germans were being outproduced by Russia's Trans-Ural factories. Azecreth 15:28, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

There could be another PoD where the AVG are never created or are destroyed in their early days. That is the only way Japan can focus on even thinking of helping the Germans. :) 1 Imperium Guy 17:05, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

It could be the last ditch use of a Nazi A-bomb in 1945-46? 82.18.194.62 04:54, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

If the Nazis put enough resources into the bomb to pull it off by that date, they are screwed in all other areas, and lose by late 1944. Otl, the bomb, at best, would have been done in late 1946-1948. Far, far, far too late. Lordganon 05:12, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we caused a gravitational collapse of a time line, that might do it...82.18.194.62 04:52, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

supernovae, neutron stars and black holes? :-)82.27.27.136 03:58, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

If Spain enters the war on the Nazi's side.82.27.27.136 06:00, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Can assassinations=P.O.D.s? Possibly the assassinating either Ike, George S. Patton, Monty or General De Galle82.27.27.136 03:54, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Spain was militarily as useless as Italy to the Nazis, especially following the civil war. Besides, remember that Franco wasn't all that enthusiastic in our time about joining in a war that could still go both ways, just so that Hitler could use his country to attack The Rock from land. Assassinating commanders, while potentially morale decreasing, required a lot of skill and luck and after one high-key assassination; everyone knows what the Nazis are up to. --XterrorX 14:23, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Peronist Argentina, the IRA and/or Vichy France could join Hitler's forces to.82.2.74.0 13:08, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

IRA hated the Germans, Argentina is useless (and would make Brazil crush them) and Vichy was with them already. Even all of those combined, no net effect.

Assassinating commanders? They find more. No real effect.

Lordganon 06:41, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

Turkey and Sweden could join the Nazis and Portugal join the Alies....90.244.87.231 04:19, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Sweden= Neutral, and wouldn't join any war. Turkey was on the allies. Flag of South Korea PitaKang- (But here's my number|So call me maybe) 20:29, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

Portugal was pro-Allies.09:28, January 28, 2018 (UTC)

Indian Hindu Genocide

Hitler believed that the northern Indians, at least, were of the same Aryan race. Furthermore, in his racial studies he probably would have come across the fact that Hinduism and the traditional Germanic religion shared roots. Islam, on the other hand, would have been hated by Hitler, on account that it was founded by Arabs, who are semites just like Jews. LurkerLordB (Talk) 13:12, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

There is also evidence to suggest the hindu swastic originated from Germany itself and Hitler used the swastic as he wanted good luck. See the link, he uses a hindu sign for his nazi flag? 1 Imperium Guy 13:18, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Many of you have made some very good points on the matter of Hindu-Nazi ideology and i will definitely make some changes to it, thank you Germanarmy17 13:54, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

hi i am luke and i was wondering am i aloud to edit hitlers world.

Hitler held favorable views on Islam as a religion, but he did regard the Arabs as inferior race. Here's a quote from him on the subject:

"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

God Bless the United States of America (talk) 00:41, June 23, 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the discussion above about how to make the Nazis able to defeat the USSR: What if the point of divergence is that Stalin dies (natural causes) at some point between the mid-30s and the early 40s, leading to a messy power struggle for leadership?

Or, maybe, something happens to make him even more paranoid than he already was? (Say, one or two almost-successful assassination attempts?) IRL he killed about a tenth (decimated, literally) of the top military commanders. What if he got so mistrustful that he did a lot more damage to the military? (E.g., maybe a few military-factory directors were involved in the plot/s, so he gets a habit of killing lots of people in charge of military production, maybe having factory equipment moved around frequently to look for bombs being built, etc.?)

Professor Thascales (talk) 04:08, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

Would be better off if he were to die of natural causes. Far better led and planned military.

For how many of those people he killed otl, don't see how a few more make much difference.

Lordganon (talk) 05:50, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

"don't see how a few more make much difference." Ah. Good point. "Far better led and planned military." You mean, the Soviet military was far better led and planned under Stalin? or would be better without him? ~anon

Without. Lordganon (talk) 18:10, January 21, 2015 (UTC).

Upgrade

I upgraded the TL and fixed a plausibility problem caused by the faliuer to cover important nations like Vichy France, Portugal, Bulgaria and Spain. Bronwyn the 2nd (talk) 13:04, January 27, 2018 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.