The alt-history scenarios in this game are fantasy scenarios, where is the actual alt-history

[Vlad123]

Those who say "the axis would have lost since the first day of the war" are sorry, but they do not understand history and strategy! Because otherwise there is no free will if everything is "prepackaged" ... but since I believe in free will, as a historian, we must think that the axis could win! In war, whoever makes fewer (or less fatal) mistakes than the opponent wins! Point. Was Hitler wrong in thinking that Churchill accepted peace by letting Dunkirk go? Yes! It wasn't a miracle, it was Hitler's kindness that let him go! The "vulgate" that says they ran out of gas is not true! it's just to give an aura of Extra miraculousness! But it was Hitler's WILL that let them go! And that's that! Before speaking, we must do this: Immerse yourself in the part of the person and (try as much as possible) think like him! Was Mussolini an idiot !? No, certainly not, in the calculation he made he was 100% sure that the Allies had surrendered in a short time. Hitler proposed peace 35 times if I remember correctly (asking LITTLE! Not half the world as many say!). Everyone thought there was going to be a war, France and the UK were ready to do a WW remake: Waiting for German Collapse / Inevitable American Aid. But no one thought of the Polish collapse in a month, that Daniamarca and Norway were hit so quickly (The allies wanted to "protect" Norway by invading it before Germany, but the Germans beat them on time) and the maginot bypassed and France capitulated in a month! But above all the winners did not think that the UK would be fighting alone for almost 2 years! Roosvelt wanted a Casus belli, Hitler did not give it to him (in the convoys he only sank the British ships with cargoes and he had expressly ordered not to return to American fire!) But the Japanese gave it to him! WW2 must be analyzed with a "cold head". Otherwise mistakes are made, both of political sympathies and of "fatalism" and both are SERIOUS mistakes for both true historians and enthusiasts.

 

[1 Star General]

The idea isn't so much the Germans spending a cozy winter in Moscow, warm and supplied, than it is the Russians being crippled enough by the loss of the Moscow-Gorky-Kalinin-Tula region in September-October, that they would've been unable to retake Moscow come winter.

I understand, but Askey seems to be rather optimistically assuming that the northern thrust (without the southern distraction) would result in relatively quick and decisive victory before the onset of the winter (hence my cozy and warm remark). My issue with his take - taking Moscow, which was a huge urban area which would be defended fiercely (Stalingrad comes to mind, just bigger and harder), was beyond Wehrmacht's capabilities, if one takes account of the logistical situation. His argument seems to backed only by referring to unspecified wargaming. And I'd be interested to read his account of those wargames, as he stated he'll publish it. But I really find it hard to believe he'll convince me that battle of Moscow would be such a trivial matter, as to be over 1,2,3 just like that. Unless we accept the collapse theory, which I'm not inclined to.

 

[qer]

@Vlad123 Of course Germany defeat wasn't set on stone, but the odds were highly stacked against then. They had better chances than the Japanese, but even after doing really , really well on the first years they still lose. Let 's be clear that on Barbarrosa the side which could have improve the most were the soviets. And yet Germany couldn't fulfill all his strategic objectives.

 

[Vlad123]

A question to be answered is: WHEN does Stalin move industries beyond the Urals?If it does it during the winter after the Germans stop, if the fly rush is right (they surround it and conquer it) Soviet industry is ... dead and I want to remember that the USA also gave industries (prefabricated, from mount) not only petrol (mostly for airplanes) and various weapons / ammunition and tanks ... and that Stalin himself either wrote a book or was interviewed for a book published shortly after the war (then made to disappear for obvious propaganda reasons) where ADMITTED that WITHOUT US HELP he would LOSE!Hopes of winning the war for germany vanish with Pearl Harbor (except of course atomic and TRUE WUNDERFFEN game mechanics!). Before that, they may win with difficulty, but they can win. After 7 December 1941 the question changes: It is no longer if the axis wins. But how long does it survive?

 

[kettyo]

After that I don't see how the Western Allies can pull off a D-Day in 1944 or ever

Nukes should not be underestimated

 

[Fulmen]

I understand, but Askey seems to be rather optimistically assuming that the northern thrust (without the southern distraction) would result in relatively quick and decisive victory before the onset of the winter (hence my cozy and warm remark). My issue with his take - taking Moscow, which was a huge urban area which would be defended fiercely (Stalingrad comes to mind, just bigger and harder), was beyond Wehrmacht's capabilities, if one takes account of the logistical situation. His argument seems to backed only by referring to unspecified wargaming. And I'd be interested to read his account of those wargames, as he stated he'll publish it. But I really find it hard to believe he'll convince me that battle of Moscow would be such a trivial matter, as to be over 1,2,3 just like that. Unless we accept the collapse theory, which I'm not inclined to.

I have another e-mail, this one I have permission to publish in its entirety as it is, between Askey and a reader, that tackles the "Moscow would've been another Stalingrad" line of thinking, as well as the state of Army Group Centre (AGC) in the fall of 1941. I'll provide a link to the full e-mail but I'll also paste the text in the usual thumbnails as I have so far, although what I'll be pasting will likely cover most of the e-mail.

Askey_response_round2

MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.

www.mediafire.com

 

[Simon Marques]

I think that Germany is very lucky with Barbarossa. The winner is the one who makes fewer mistakes, and the USSR made many critical mistakes at the beginning of the war. So much so that Germany found the USSR without pants, if the USSR concentrated its troops on the border, as does all the AI in the game, Germany would not have gone far, but real life is not a game, the concentration of the entire army on the border is a clear threat and this is done only in emergency situation. In order to fundamentally change the "Barbarossa" situation, it was required to begin the concentration of Soviet troops in the spring, when all the troops would have managed to arrive at the border and built defensive positions. But it turned out that Germany attacked when the USSR moved its troops to the border.

The French concentrated their forces on the border, in an extremely well defended and fortified line, yet the Germans ran over both French and British, but they forgot to exterminate British and French troops in Dunkirk. From then on Hitler started shi%$#*@! on the generals' plans. I didn't know who was the dumbest if Hitler or Goering who had the brilliant idea to change the focus of strategic bombing to the bombing of cities and civilians in England(a mistake that would cost too much for the Luftwaffe)

 

[valentin4]

Nukes should not be underestimated

So in this scenario, what happens between the soviet collapse in 1942 and August 1945? The axis just tweedle their thumbs waiting to be nuked?

 

[Zauberelefant]

I just want to add to the issue people take with alt history focuses and their duration:
America going communist (or taking huge steps in the direction) is not actually happening in 70 days. Same goes for the building of Westwall fortifications or the extension of the Maginot line - you take that focus for 10 weeks, but that's not the time in which things are actually happening.
I argue that some focuses need to be understood as retcon in nature - if you bring back Napoleon in France it's not because the alt history starts when you pick that focus, but way before it, so implicit conditions (monarchist sentiments on the rise) are then met. Its a virtual extension of the game's timeline into the past (complicated, as all things time travel).

To give a clear example:
Of course imperial Japan going communist in March 1936 is ridiculous. However, in the alt history timeline that has a strong communist movement in Japan, the 30s had the ground laid already and it's you, the player, who hits the "execute" button and makes the possibility a reality.

The time before 1936 in hoi4 is basically Schroedinger's Past, becoming only clear after you pick your focuses.

 

[Fulmen]

I just want to add to the issue people take with alt history focuses and their duration:
America going communist (or taking huge steps in the direction) is not actually happening in 70 days. Same goes for the building of Westwall fortifications or the extension of the Maginot line - you take that focus for 10 weeks, but that's not the time in which things are actually happening.
I argue that some focuses need to be understood as retcon in nature - if you bring back Napoleon in France it's not because the alt history starts when you pick that focus, but way before it, so implicit conditions (monarchist sentiments on the rise) are then met. Its a virtual extension of the game's timeline into the past (complicated, as all things time travel).

To give a clear example:
Of course imperial Japan going communist in March 1936 is ridiculous. However, in the alt history timeline that has a strong communist movement in Japan, the 30s had the ground laid already and it's you, the player, who hits the "execute" button and makes the possibility a reality.

The time before 1936 in hoi4 is basically Schroedinger's Past, becoming only clear after you pick your focuses.

The issue with that is that realistically such an action in one country would already have been met with a reaction in others, altering the starting position for many, if not most countries. But since that does not happen, we have to assume that 1.1.1936 is indeed meant to represent the historical 1.1.1936, and only events that transpire after the game's start are alt-history.

 

[Simon Marques]

A question to be answered is: WHEN does Stalin move industries beyond the Urals?If it does it during the winter after the Germans stop, if the fly rush is right (they surround it and conquer it) Soviet industry is ... dead and I want to remember that the USA also gave industries (prefabricated, from mount) not only petrol (mostly for airplanes) and various weapons / ammunition and tanks ... and that Stalin himself either wrote a book or was interviewed for a book published shortly after the war (then made to disappear for obvious propaganda reasons) where ADMITTED that WITHOUT US HELP he would LOSE!Hopes of winning the war for germany vanish with Pearl Harbor (except of course atomic and TRUE WUNDERFFEN game mechanics!). Before that, they may win with difficulty, but they can win. After 7 December 1941 the question changes: It is no longer if the axis wins. But how long does it survive?

I agree, I have also seen a lot of reporting about the lend-lease program, the problem is that it has a lot of fans here. As always the winners tend to tell the story in their own way, totally in a partial way. Example of this, the exaggerations about the story of the 300 esparta. The Russians were what we can call a bunch of suicidal amateurs who didn't have love for the lives of their fellow men by throwing them to certain death. Stalin had killed or sent to the gulags practically all the brains of Russia.

Of course, by the time winter came they had organized themselves enough, becoming a professional army. If you don't learn for good, learn for evil.

 

[1 Star General]

I have another e-mail, this one I have permission to publish in its entirety as it is, between Askey and a reader, that tackles the "Moscow would've been another Stalingrad" line of thinking, as well as the state of Army Group Centre (AGC) in the fall of 1941. I'll provide a link to the full e-mail but I'll also paste the text in the usual thumbnails as I have so far, although what I'll be pasting will likely cover most of the e-mail.

Lots of wishful thinking, again, completely disregarding logistics. When he says that 'it is unclear' why the Germans didn't surround Stalingrad, he ignores the most rational and obvious explanation - they were way beyond the zone they could supply their troops reasonably well, overextended and on their last legs after a long campaign, especially bitter fighting in the Don area. All the examples of successful assaults of urban centers he uses are from the first stages of Barbarossa, within the zone Germans could supply relatively well and when they weren't exhausted yet. Attacking Moscow at the end of 1941 drive is hardly comparable to assaults on Minsk or Kiev. Logistically it was a nightmare for the Germans beyond Smolensk, all the accounts confirm that, and it wasn't a surprise either, as their own logisticians warned them beforehand it would be so. I'm a bit disappointed, after reading the first email you shared I hoped Askey had something stronger prepared. Now I can only say he confirms my original suspicion regarding his complete lack of minding supply issues even more - at one point he says something on the line 'the Germans would penetrate few hundred km beyond Moscow“ - now, that is just tripping He seems to know something German quartermaster general didn't .

 

[Simon Marques]

Those who say "the axis would have lost since the first day of the war" are sorry, but they do not understand history and strategy! Because otherwise there is no free will if everything is "prepackaged" ... but since I believe in free will, as a historian, we must think that the axis could win! In war, whoever makes fewer (or less fatal) mistakes than the opponent wins! Point. Was Hitler wrong in thinking that Churchill accepted peace by letting Dunkirk go? Yes! It wasn't a miracle, it was Hitler's kindness that let him go! The "vulgate" that says they ran out of gas is not true! it's just to give an aura of Extra miraculousness! But it was Hitler's WILL that let them go! And that's that! Before speaking, we must do this: Immerse yourself in the part of the person and (try as much as possible) think like him! Was Mussolini an idiot !? No, certainly not, in the calculation he made he was 100% sure that the Allies had surrendered in a short time. Hitler proposed peace 35 times if I remember correctly (asking LITTLE! Not half the world as many say!). Everyone thought there was going to be a war, France and the UK were ready to do a WW remake: Waiting for German Collapse / Inevitable American Aid. But no one thought of the Polish collapse in a month, that Daniamarca and Norway were hit so quickly (The allies wanted to "protect" Norway by invading it before Germany, but the Germans beat them on time) and the maginot bypassed and France capitulated in a month! But above all the winners did not think that the UK would be fighting alone for almost 2 years! Roosvelt wanted a Casus belli, Hitler did not give it to him (in the convoys he only sank the British ships with cargoes and he had expressly ordered not to return to American fire!) But the Japanese gave it to him! WW2 must be analyzed with a "cold head". Otherwise mistakes are made, both of political sympathies and of "fatalism" and both are SERIOUS mistakes for both true historians and enthusiasts.

The allies were formed by none other than Russia (almost inexhaustible source of human meat to be thrown in the slaughterhouse) and the United States (country with the largest economy and largest industry in the world). As I said before, Hitler let the British evacuate around 300 thousand men from Dunkirk, as a result these same men land in Normandy to the despair of Hitler and joy of the French.

Hitler became obsessed with conquering Russia and mainly Stalingrad, refused all requests from his generals requesting permission to retreat, as a result millions of valuable and experienced soldiers would be killed or captured on the eastern front. The loss of the best equipped and most experienced German army (the sixth army) was also a hard blow.

Hitler would lead Germany to the loss of more than 1500 aircraft and very valuable experienced pilots in the skies of England.

The weight of Hitler's interference was such in the final outcome of the battles that he would have to fire one of his best strategists, Franz Halder, because he fiercely opposed Hitler's interference with the original plans of Operation Barbarossa. The same Franz Halder wrote something about this in "The Halder Diaries", if I remember correctly.

This story comes down to a corporal called Hitler vs. Experienced Tactical Academic Experts of the German Armed Forces. Years of study and research were nothing in the face of Hitler's egomania, a mediocre corporal who became the leader of the German nation.

For Sun Tsu, Hitler would be the perfect opponent, unstable but predictable and egocentric.

 

[Fulmen]

Lots of wishful thinking, again, completely disregarding logistics. When he says that 'it is unclear' why the Germans didn't surround Stalingrad, he ignores the most rational and obvious explanation - they were way beyond the zone they could supply their troops reasonably well, overextended and on their last legs after a long campaign, especially bitter fighting in the Don area. All the examples of successful assaults of urban centers he uses are from the first stages of Barbarossa, within the zone Germans could supply relatively well and when they weren't exhausted yet. Attacking Moscow at the end of 1941 drive is hardly comparable to assaults on Minsk or Kiev. Logistically it was a nightmare for the Germans beyond Smolensk, all the accounts confirm that, and it wasn't a surprise either, as their own logisticians warned them beforehand it would be so. I'm a bit disappointed, after reading the first email you shared I hoped Askey had something stronger prepared. Now I can only say he confirms my original suspicion regarding his complete lack of minding supply issues even more - at one point he says something on the line 'the Germans would penetrate few hundred km beyond Moscow“ - now, that is just tripping He seems to know something German quartermaster general didn't .

I am a little cautious myself (as one should always be when it comes to sources), but I'll have to read his books before really formulating an opinion. His reasoning is certainly much deeper than what a couple of e-mails might let on.

 

[1 Star General]

I am a little cautious myself (as one should always be when it comes to sources), but I'll have to read his books before really formulating an opinion. His reasoning is certainly much deeper than what a couple of e-mails might let on.

True, I'm curious too, let's wait what will he reveal regarding the 'war games' he keeps bringing up. But honestly, I'm skeptical.

 

[Sultan Suleiman]

FAKT ORK PRESENTS DAILY ANSWERS WITH FAKT ORK

Fakt Ork sits down to his desk, where he picks up his daily letter: a question from a reader.

Wharf's dis, den?!

He puts on a pair of crude metal reading spectacles. They have no lenses.

“Deer Fakt Ork”—oi, dat's me!

“De nashy-null fokus treez in dat game, 'earts of Irun, ain't nuthin' but fairy-tale zog fit only for de littlest, tree-foot-tall Ork babiez. Wherez da bleedin' plozzy-bull alternut 'istory?!

Yor fan,

Franklin”

'earts of Irun?! Ain't dat dat humie WAAAGH!!! game wif no Orks in it?! Wuz they know 'bout fightin'?! I'd show 'em a fing or two 'bout stumpin' n' krumpin'!

Anyway, time to research!

Fakt Ork turns over his shoulder.

Oi, Chuka! Git in 'ere!

A smaller Ork swaggers in with a “Yeah, boss?” Fakt Ork point to the desk.

Take care o' dis! I'm off for grog!

TWO YEARS AND THREE UNIVERSITY GRANTS LATER

Fakt Ork is back at his desk.

Ol' right! Now, afta' much scientiffy-cull anally-suss...we'z still ain't finished. We'z only did da majorz. Bloody 'ell, resarch is borin'! No dakka, no burnin', no crunchin', no nuffin'!

Anyway, 'ere's a list o' da most plozzy-bull alternut 'istories for you gitz what sez dere ain't none!

FRANTS:

Dem Nashy Block Boyz defeat dem Lefty Boyz in de elekshunz.

Frants joins da WAAAGH!!! in Spain (Spain is like PAIN, but wif an “S”!)

Frants supportz da ladz from Che...Czche...Progg.

Frants makes nicey-nice wif dem Bolshy Boyz.

Frants werks wif da Fashy Hat Git to oppoze da Fashy Mustash Git.

YOO KAY:

Da Britz forty-fy East Azia and tell Choina deyse sorry for all dose colonialismz.

Da Britz say, “Oi, git in 'ere!” to da Commonwelf.

Dat Cigar Git sez “Oi, git out!” to dat bloke what wanted dem peas wif thyme.

De Yoo Kay sez, “You'se our friendz, not dere friendz!” to dem low kuntreez and dem kold kuntreez.

DEM STARZ AND STRIPEZ BOYZ WHOZ FLAG IS LIKE WHAT YOUZ SEE WHEN YOR 'EAD GETZ WHUMPED AN' YOUZ KANT FEEL NUTHIN' 'BOVE YOR NEK:

Dem Republikan Boyz beat dat Chair Git to become da BIG BOSS.

De Yankz git off dere arses and join da WAAAGH!!! on propa time, even tho sum blokez git mad.

DAT FASHY GIT WIF DA MUSTASH:

Mustash Git buildz his Falcon House in Choina, givez da kold shoulda to dem Island Boyz.

Mustash Git sez to Bolshy Git, “Dem ladz near you are wif me now! Step off! We'z don't needz no non-aggry-shun pakt wif you!”

Mustash Git sez to Yoogaslavia and Greese, “Oi, gimme sum land! Youz ain't usin' it!”

Mustash Git sez "WAAAGH!!!" to dem chocolate, mountain ladz.

De floaty boyz for Mustash Git go wif dem top-floataz instedda dem bottom-floataz.

DA FASHY GIT WIF DA HAT:

Hat Git sez, “Zog off!” to Mustash Git.

Hat Git sez to Spanish Git, “We'z help you, but we'z wantz a beach 'ouse and a date wif yer mum!”

ISLAND BOYZ:

Dem gitz what hate de uvvah gitz toss dem gitz out to WAAAGH!!! on dem Bolshy Gitz.

BOLSHY BOYZ:

Da Big Bolshy Git tellz da Island Boyz dey ain't so bad and concy-trates on liberating the working classes across western Europe from the oppressive practices of the counter-revolutionary bourgeosie.

Da head Bolshy Git rehabilly-tates his ladz instedda abusin' 'em wif da NKVD.

IN KONKLUSHUN:

If youz ain't konvinced and would like more examplez, feel free to ZOG OFF! YOU 'EARD ME! GO BOVVAH SOMEONE ELSE FROM NOW ON! NO MORE LETTERZ!

 

[1 Star General]

Napoleon in France and Byzantine Empire is simply not within the purview of any historical possibility at the time when this game exists, they all are nothing but just fantasy and can be easily replaced with Jon Snow teleporting himself to this world and becoming king of France, it won't change anything.

In the meantime, the actual alt-history the things that could have happened in ww2 is so underutilized and represented, the actual what-ifs. Like what if western allies went through operation pike? what if July 20 plot succeded. What if khalkin gol resulted in full-scale war? what if western allies and USSR formed an alliance against Germany? And so many other actually interesting ww2 what-ifs that are lacking in the game. Surely for a ww2 based games, these should be a focus on plausible alt-history scenarios than frankly fantasy scenarios like the Austria-Hungary empire.

I agree strongly. Kudos for bringing it up. The BIG 'what if' questions, few of which you've mentioned, are 'kind of' covered, but they're not flashed out properly. These should really be pivotal, transformative, hard coded key nodes. Instead they get lost in the crowd of Roman Empires, Napoleons, Communist Japans and the like.
I mean I don't mind them being in the game and I'm sure they add a lot in terms of replayability for some ppl, but there should be more stress put on more plausible and interesting scenarios.

 

[Vlad123]

The allies were formed by none other than Russia (almost inexhaustible source of human meat to be thrown in the slaughterhouse) and the United States (country with the largest economy and largest industry in the world). As the word goes, Hitler let the British evacuate their men from Dunkirk, as a result these same men land in Normandy to the despair of Hitler and joy of the French.

Hitler became obsessed with conquering Russia and mainly Stalingrad, refused all requests from his generals requesting permission to retreat, as a result millions of valuable and experienced soldiers would be killed or captured on the eastern front.

Hitler became obsessed with bombing civilian targets in England instead of strategic targets like air bases, ports, factories and so on. As a result, the air force would lose some 1,500 valuable aircraft and experienced pilots who could have made more of a difference on the Eastern front.

The weight of Hitler's misguided decisions was such that he would have to fire one of his best strategists, Franz Halder, because he fiercely opposed Hitler's interference with the original plans of Operation Barbarossa. The same Franz Halder wrote something about this in "The Halder Diaries" if I remember correctly.

This story comes down to a corporal called Hitler vs. Experienced Tactical Academic Experts of the German Armed Forces. Years of study and research were nothing in the face of Hitler's egomania, a mediocre corporal who became the leader of the German nation.

For Sun Tsu, Hitler would be the perfect opponent, unstable, predictable and egocentric.

Hitler do this error because think Churchill accept the peace in case of avoided slaugthered. And the bombing of civilian target appear why after first bombing in industrial center Churchill decide to send their bobmers to counter attack the germany...but with civilian target! Their Advisor warning churchill can hitler make a revenge hitting civilian target provoking hitler and they start bomb civilian target! Was a Cynic decision? Yes.Run? Yes. Churchill be kicked after the war because they are a "bad leader" they never thinked to the wealth of people and think only to defeat hitler at any cost. The fascist symphatizer warning if the war are too long uk lost their empire and need accept hitler sweet peace. They not did wrong

 

[kettyo]

The French concentrated their forces on the border, in an extremely well defended and fortified line, yet the Germans ran over both French and British, but they forgot to exterminate British and French troops in Dunkirk. From then on Hitler started shi%$#*@! on the generals' plans. I didn't know who was the dumbest if Hitler or Goering who had the brilliant idea to change the focus of strategic bombing to the bombing of cities and civilians in England(a mistake that would cost too much for the Luftwaffe)

You fail to recognize that by the time the Dunkerque pocket was encircled France was still standing and fighting so containing the pocket and concentrating on defeating France was the much more logical move. Especially that the Germans had no reliable intelligence on the forces stationed in France so they couldn't even rule out an Allied counter-encirclement which would have been disastrous for the Germans.

 

[kettyo]

So in this scenario, what happens between the soviet collapse in 1942 and August 1945? The axis just tweedle their thumbs waiting to be nuked?

Certainly not but i'm fairly certain even a Reich victorious in the East can be invaded supported by nukes.