Death's Companion
General Ugg Apologist.
Makes sense.
Its a shame though because that pivot played a big part in killing the series dead for me.
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
The Walking Wonder Weapon: Looking Back at '1945A'
- Thread starter Gary Oswald
- Start date
Its a shame though because that pivot played a big part in killing the series dead for me.
Interesting. I recall @ChrisNuttall 's "Second Chance" books took a lot of inspiration from Axis of Time and did go with the Nazi-Soviet alliance idea. It's probably one of those cases where sacrificing story concept on the altar of strict plausibility was a bad move. (Also, I don't think 'Stalin would never trust Hitler again' is incompatible with 'clearly temporary teeth-clenched pact against superior enemy, dropped and backstabbed by either side at the first opportunity').
ChrisNuttall
Well-known member
I’ve always had the impression that Stalin considered either attacking Hitler first in 1941 - how serious this was depends on who you believe - or coming to some kind of terms with the Germans in 1942/3 if the war went against them. It’s not entirely OOC for Stalin to at least put out feelers to see if the Germans might be interested in a truce, particularly if he thinks he can stab Hitler in the back before Hitler stabs him firsts. Just how that would have worked out in real life is debatable.
In Second Chance, the alliance was formed before Barbarossa was anything more than a rough idea in Hitler’s mind (1940). There was some suggestion that the USSR might be interested in joining the Tripartite Pact in 1940 (Hitler didn’t like the idea, as he was already planning his march to the east) so it’s at least possible they would come to terms in ATL, particularly as they learn more about OTL’s future. I didn’t see the alliance lasting indefinitely, particularly as the USSR would learn what had happened in OTL, but it would make things more flexible in the 40-42 period.
By the time of Axis, there’s very little reason for an alliance unless the bad guys think there’s a reasonable chance they have to hang together or hang separately. I don’t see Stalin agreeing to anything more than a truce, at least unless he’s deprived of all future insight (i.e. no captured future ships). The exposure of the cambridge spy ring and suchlike will probably heighten his paranoia, though.
Chris
True, I was forgetting your story happens before Barbarossa was launched - a tad different situation regardless!
The "Stalin planned to hit first" thing seems to be a conspiracy IIRC*, with the argument Hitler was preemptively defending himself? That one seems dubious, if only because if Stalin was preparing for war why did he sit with his hands over his ears going "no no no no" when the Germans struck? Surely too the Russian forces near the front would've been better prepared and armed than they were
* Except in 2000AD's Savage Book Three where it was factual history for some reason and meant seriously idfk
* Except in 2000AD's Savage Book Three where it was factual history for some reason and meant seriously idfk
- Pronouns
- he/him
Zhukov penned a document in spring 1941, arguing for a pre-emptive strike on the germans before their inevitable attack. @The Red wrote an article on it.
So the USSR were certainly considering it. Stalin himself wasn't, he was convinced he could buy a year by appeasement and only received reports which backed that up. As paul says in the article, there's no evidence that he even saw Zhukov's plan. And the intelligence saying that the germans will attack in june, which zhukovs argument was based on, was marked as 'doubtful' rather than 'trustworthy' when it came to stalin because it was not what he wanted to hear.
Death's Companion
General Ugg Apologist.
I've always heard it treated as a matter of fact that Stalin figured a war with Germany was coming but believed that the deal was too good and the odds so heavily in the USSR's favor that only a madman would attack before 1943 plenty of time to sort out the issues with the Red Army, issue the new equipment and so on.
Indeed his worst fear in 1941 was that his overeager regional commanders would respond to 'rogue' Whermarcht generals overstepping the mark and 'force' Hitler to double down. Hence his frantic demands that they not respond to the initial attacks until he'd got a grip on the situation.
I doubt he was ever planning to attack in 1941 but I think that's more because he already had a rough start date for the war in his head, defensive or offensive.
So much of WWII seemed to come down to the Allies consistently pegging 1943 as when things would get serious and getting caught flat footed when the Germans did not wait.
Indeed his worst fear in 1941 was that his overeager regional commanders would respond to 'rogue' Whermarcht generals overstepping the mark and 'force' Hitler to double down. Hence his frantic demands that they not respond to the initial attacks until he'd got a grip on the situation.
I doubt he was ever planning to attack in 1941 but I think that's more because he already had a rough start date for the war in his head, defensive or offensive.
So much of WWII seemed to come down to the Allies consistently pegging 1943 as when things would get serious and getting caught flat footed when the Germans did not wait.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Four Words: Post 2003 Pat Mills. I think the Iraq War made him start hugging glue.
- Location
- Coventry
The T-44 and M26 Pershing both saw service in WW2, and the Centurion arrived only a couple of weeks after the War in Europe ended as I recall.
Death's Companion
General Ugg Apologist.
The M26 was only a Wundewaffen in terms of I wonder wafdefuck they were thinking am I right lads?
Proximity fuses, Atomic bombs, computers etc. all fit the bill better I think.
Proximity fuses, Atomic bombs, computers etc. all fit the bill better I think.
Arthur_Phuxache
Ask yourself now — can you forgive her?
- Location
- Greater Doncastrian Empire
The Pershing was preferable to a burning Sherman.
Despite the fact the Russkis built 2,000 of them, the T-44 was never used in combat
Cavity magnetron/radar, 1 in 3 Allied bombers in Europe were fitted with some form of radar, and every nightfighter. Luftwaffe was lucky to have radar sets 1 out of 100 in bombers. Even the two nukes had radar altimeters in them.
FriendlyGhost
Haunting history in a good way
Reading/watching this put me in mind of the various photo-shopped pictures of sci-fi (usually Star Wars) in the 2nd WW.
(spoilered so as not to ruin the thread with quite silly pics)
(spoilered so as not to ruin the thread with quite silly pics)
This one is almost like the premise in 1945A:
This one also a bit similar:
This one supports the premise that they wouldn't last long:
- Location
- North Alabama
Connected to the 1953 War of the Worlds reference in the article, I've recently been giving another listen to Francis Spufford's Following The Martian Invasion series Radio 4 did as part of their Mars season in 2017. Episode 3 features Spufford talking with General Sir Rupert Smith about the advance of the tripods in Wells' novel, talking about how even now they would be tough to take on, to the point of suggesting suicide bombers (in so many words) as a strategy against them. And certainly the infamous 1938 radio version (and to an extent the 2005 Spielberg film) showed that there might have been some flaws in the argument made by the advisors on the 1953 film.
Beyond that, thanks @SpanishSpy for pointing me in the direction of this little film and an enjoyable read of an article.
Beyond that, thanks @SpanishSpy for pointing me in the direction of this little film and an enjoyable read of an article.
Death's Companion
General Ugg Apologist.
I think they were basing it on the fact that a destroyer/torpedo boat or battleship depending on the interpretation takes out a Tripod with its guns.
If late 19th century cannon at the lower end more or less field artillery on land can easily dispatch a Tripod then the firepower on offer to the 1950s United States military would definitely do the job, everything from rockets to atomic howitzers and air attack.
And well Tripods as a concept don't really work too well. Way too vulnerable from basically every direction, either go for the legs, shoot up into the guts or hammer down from above. A really high profile for a slow moving and obvious target that needs a line of sight to attack is a bad idea.
Resistance was possible in the right circumstances in the 1800s, it doesn't seem at all to be overconfident to assume sixty years and two world wars better prepared humanity especially given the low numbers of Tripods in the original and the required set up time.
Hence the demand for a tech upgrade and shielding to make it as one sided as originally intended.
One thing to note in relation to @SpanishSpy's review is that a lot of the contemporary conspiracy theories or Nazi apologia around Barbarossa being a pre-emptive strike is inspired by the writings of Viktor Suvorov who himself bases of a lot of his claims on the Soviet 'wunderwaffen' of the era. 'Flying' tanks which could glide or be dropped onto the battlefield? Clearly designed in preparation for a massed airborne assault behind German lines! Multi-turreted 'land battleships' would force breakthroughs whilst 'fast' tanks which could detach their treads would exploit them to speed down the autobahn on their wheels. Armoured, heavily armed aircraft were designed with only ground targets in mind, the aim being to wipe out the enemy air power in one fell swoop before they could take off and then eliminating the German ground forces. Basically the main issue affecting the Red Army in the Summer of 1941 was actually that it was too highly specialised to perform a singular task, he gets quite hyperbolic about how the fast tanks were only ever meant to be used in Central and Southern Europe or that Soviet fighters weren't designed to dogfight.