Fatherland - vague areas

Matt Wiser

What about the former British, Dutch, and French colonies in SEA overrun by the Japanese? They're either independent now, or are under some sort of U.S. protection.
 

David bar Elias

Matt Wiser said:
What about the former British, Dutch, and French colonies in SEA overrun by the Japanese? They're either independent now, or are under some sort of U.S. protection.
Click to expand...

I imagine that they gained their independence with U.S. backing after the Pacific War, and are dependable allies as of the time the book takes place.
 

Looseheadprop

lothaw said:
I don't think China is mentioned all too much. I'd assume the KMT would've eventually won being Soviet Russia wasn't arount to assist Mao and the US was opening supporting them, not to mention it's in their sphere of influence now.

And I'd assume South America would've found itself with lots of facist regimes to try and appease Hitler.
Click to expand...

I think Mao did win, as there seems to be a three way cold war. btw the USSR supported the Guomindang as much as it supported the CCP. the CCP didnt actually choose sides int he cold war until Korea

its mentioned in the book that the lead character could try the chinese embassy too escape but that with the craziness going on over there its not a good idea and that the chinese and germans were not on good terms.
 

Russell

Looseheadprop said:
I think Mao did win, as there seems to be a three way cold war. btw the USSR supported the Guomindang as much as it supported the CCP. the CCP didnt actually choose sides int he cold war until Korea

its mentioned in the book that the lead character could try the chinese embassy too escape but that with the craziness going on over there its not a good idea and that the chinese and germans were not on good terms.
Click to expand...

Hmm, just because they're not on good terms doesn't mean that Mao won the war. The nationalists could have probably won but not be on good terms with Germany, still bitter over Germanies betrayal in 1941 where they stopped all military aid in favour of joing with Japan.
 

lothaw

Russell said:
Hmm, just because they're not on good terms doesn't mean that Mao won the war. The nationalists could have probably won but not be on good terms with Germany, still bitter over Germanies betrayal in 1941 where they stopped all military aid in favour of joing with Japan.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was my line of thinking. Hitler pretty much did offer them up on a silver platter to Japan.
 

Xascul

you know what i find interesting about this is that i predict that by about 1980s to 90s the Reich would have collapsed. Historically, powerful regimes can't survive when so much power is concentrated in the hands of a single person and there is not a strong system intact. Ironically, there is no cold war if Nazi Germany had won
 

lothaw

Didn't the book make it clear that Reinhard Heydrich was assumed to be Hilter's successor?

Nazi Germany's hegemony over Europe may well collaspe in the 90's as the Soviet Union did. Then again it might not.
 

Matt Wiser

I wonder if Hong Kong's sort of a "free city" under U.S. protection. (i.e. a U.S. base after the Japanese occupation)
 

B_Munro

I can hardly imagine a Guomindang China being described as _worse_ than a concentration camp. OTL, Mao won with very little help from Stalin: given that the US is going to be looking at the victorious Reich as Enemy Number One, they are likely to be rather less stressed about Communism and if anything _less_ likely to intervene to save Chiang's bacon than OTL.

My assumption was always that Mao had still come to power and something like the Cultural Revolution had kicked off in China (Fatherland was set in 1964 and the CR began OTL 1965, but given butterflies, what's a year) - it wasn't safe for anyone in China OTL during that period, and certainly wouldn't be for visitors from the evil imperialist fascist anti-revolutionary state - either that, or China was in the middle of some sort of nasty civil war.

I don't think there's a three-way cold war: the main reason the Reich doesn't just vaporize the USSR (and BTW, the Urals are not a very impressive mountain range - they were a mere speedbump for the Mongols) is that they're afraid the US would retaliate, which seems to indicate the US has a vested interest in propping up the Soviets. My impression was that the Reich was very keen on making peace with the US precisely so they'd stop supporting the Soviets - the war in the East is the main thing that is complained of, not the costs of mainting a nuclear deterrent vs the US or holding down western Europe and whatever parts of Africa and the Middle East they've grabbed.

I'm not sure that the former colonies in Asia would be naturally loyal to the US - several pretty authoritarian right-wing regimes that in OTL were US allies vs communism might find less to disagree with on the part of the Reich, which is also comfortably far away. The Koreans probably stay loyal because they want the US, with its bases in Japan (and the Phillipines and perhaps Taiwan) in their corner, having both the rump USSR and Red China as neighbors - but Indonesia? Thailand? Burma?

Which does bring me to one area of uncertainty - what of the area between Syria and Burma/Myanamar? Is Iraq a German ally, or a colony? What of Iran? And what of India? The Reich getting it's armies that far east, and conquering India in the likely face of US opposition, seems unlikely (transportation through Iraq and Iran is likely to be a bitch, anyway), but I have trouble with seeing India as a US ally: given the socialistic inclinations of the Indian Congress Party, India would be likely to maintain a certain amount of distance from the capitalistic US, although they would be friendlier to them than to the Reich.

The thing is, in the listing we are given of countries which would hand over March either because the US says so or the Reich says so, India is not mentioned: and I have trouble seeing Nehru's India handing over a German political refugee just on the say-so of the US. In a map I made of the Fatherland-universe, I imagined an India that fragmented into mutiple squabbling states, some allied to the Reich, others to the US...

Bruce
 

Jesse

Zyzzyva said:
No, Japan got utterly destroyed by the Americans - Harris, sensibly, doesn't go for the total Axis victory but has Japan lose (it gets nuked). Germany uses this as an opportunity to V3 New York, starting off the whole stalemate.
Click to expand...
If the US had nukes in this timeline but the Nazis didn't, what kept the US from using them to win? Was Roosevelt still President during WWII in this timeline, or was it someone different?
 

Susano

Banned
Jesse said:
If the US had nukes in this timeline but the Nazis didn't, what kept the US from using them to win? Was Roosevelt still President during WWII in this timeline, or was it someone different?
Click to expand...

Thats the point: Germany had. The USA drew first, at Japan, but Germany fired back.
 

Jesse

Susano said:
Thats the point: Germany had. The USA drew first, at Japan, but Germany fired back.
Click to expand...
Oh, OK, I was confused by The Red's subsequent comment:
The Red said:
Can the Nazis actullay beat the remaining Soviet Union sans Nukes or is it just keeping it going to keep Germany in a perpetual state of conflict?References are made to both,I beleive the former as the Urals will be very easy to defend and Stalin will be getting massive American aid.
Click to expand...
Should we assume that many former Soviet cities are now radioactive craters, and that the continued fighting in the Urals is due to a spread-out guerilla network?
 

Susano

Banned
Once both sides have nukes and ICBMs, Germany ismply cant nuke the USSR, because America would retaliate likewise. Hence why they have to keep the fight conventional.
 

Russell

One could argue that following Hitlers death, say in the early 60's the election of a New Fuhrer might see his powers curtailed by the advent of a new generation of Nazi Party members wanting a bigger slice of the pie, similar to what happened after Stalin in the USSR. In my mind I could see the Reich last longer than the USSR, perhaps upto 2000 or maybe even until 2010.

What really interest me is, having seen the result of a post USSR Eurasia, what post Reich collapse in Europe would be like.
 

Wendell

Russell said:
One could argue that following Hitlers death, say in the early 60's the election of a New Fuhrer might see his powers curtailed by the advent of a new generation of Nazi Party members wanting a bigger slice of the pie, similar to what happened after Stalin in the USSR. In my mind I could see the Reich last longer than the USSR, perhaps upto 2000 or maybe even until 2010.

What really interest me is, having seen the result of a post USSR Eurasia, what post Reich collapse in Europe would be like.
Click to expand...

It's hard to know what would emerge in their places.
 

The Red

The USSR might actually last longer as they and Stalin have pretty much got the support of the non-Fascist world and if WW3 ever takes place they'll pretty much survive.
 

Jesse

Susano said:
Once both sides have nukes and ICBMs, Germany ismply cant nuke the USSR, because America would retaliate likewise. Hence why they have to keep the fight conventional.
Click to expand...
You mean the US would still treat the USSR as an ally even after the US was no longer at war with Germany? Like a version of NATO that includes the US and USSR? It isn't obvious that this would happen, I'm not sure the US would want to start WWIII to protect a former communist country that was mostly defeated except for guerilla fighting...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top