Excellent guest writing there, Mind Elemental. I enjoyed reading it, nice twist on one of my favorite series. 
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
June 1949: Partly Cloudy
If we do not act, history will cast its verdict with those terrible, chilling words, 'Too late.'” There was a deafening silence in Parliament as Winston Churchill, leader of the opposition, finished his speech. Paraphrasing one of his better-known phrases from the pre-war days, the silence echoed in quiet reverberation as the Conservatives once again laid down the gauntlet of military preparedness. With the five years of Attlee’s government coming to a close in July 1950, the necessity of a general election was causing rumblings throughout the island, as a slow economic decline, financial despair, a chill over Europe, and worries over the security of the country pulled the electorate in many directions. Most confidently predicted sweeping gains for the Conservatives, some venturing as far as to point to a sure Churchill election. The American expulsion of the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS or MI6) representative in Washington, Harold “Kim” Philby, had only added to Labour woes. The lack of protest over Philby’s recall added weight to rumors of spying and communist infiltration.
The expulsion of SIS representative “Kim” Philby from Washington was an embarassment for the Attlee government
Other names were being thrown about, from Donald MacLean, prospective head of the American Department in the Foreign Office, to Sir Roger Hollis of MI6. It was a threatening scandal that did not seem to go away easily. With an overwhelming majority in Parliament, however, Prime Minister Attlee appeared willing to ride out his term to the full five years, feeling safe from the tremondous Labour defection required for a no-confidence motion.
The Prime Minister was attempting, meanwhile, to reassemble a Three Powers Conference – Britain, France, and the Soviet Union – to discuss some of the growing issues regarded the European settlement hammered out at Versailles and Orleans. Protests by DeGaulle’s government over rumored shipments of valuable works of art from museums in the RPF and the RSI went practically unanswered. In the words of one French official, ”the Musée Gadagne is a testament to the architecture of empty warehouses.” Also unanswered were concerns over Poland, where the June election returns pointed to an overwhelming Communist victory. Charges of voter fraud, however, were immediately leveled against Gomulka’s coalition, and the rejection of Sikorski and Bor-Komorowski’s calls for an investigation seemed to be only adding fuel to a worsening situation in the country.
Nations sign the First Protocols of the OTO Accords
In Washington, the first protocols of the Oceanic Treaty Organization, derisively referred to by some with the German pronunciation, ”otto”, were signed between the United States, Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, Oman, Iraq, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, the United States of Central America, Gran Colombia, Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. Although these First Protocols were more of a treaty of friendship, they were clearly a first step in the fusion of the old Western Alliance with the Pan-American Union, the fruition of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. With a strong anti-communist bulwark in mind, Dulles, in conjunction with President Lindbergh, framed the first charter to be a declaration of principles:
These First Protocols, sometimes referred to as the Charter of Three, essentially committed the parties to a world view diametrically opposed to that of the Comintern, though no mention of communism or the Soviet Union was ever mentioned in the OTO Accords. Dulles immediately went to work on additional protocols, which would spell out the organization of OTO, establish a framework for military cooperation, as well as assert positions on various international issues.
A first issue for OTO was clearly the Asian War, where the first tendrils of American aid, indirect and secretive, was arriving in Japan. It was fortuitous timing, for, as the Japanese attache in Manila mentioned to his American counterpart, ”the first anti-tank guns that arrived in Shanghai on the 2nd of June had less than one hundred miles to travel before being thrown into action against the Communists.” Rumors of Prime Minister Tojo’s retirement, supposedly for health reasons, was sparking a political battle between his heir apparent, Yoshijiro Umezu, aging general and strong proponent of the war in Asia, and moderate opponents.
Yoshijiro Umezu – Japan’s new Prime Minister
Backed by the Imperial Army and elevated through great pressure, he quickly ran into conflict as his rivals rallied around Kantaro Suzuki. Suzuki did not favor the carte blanche backing of the Kiri government in China, pointing to aggressive Chinese pressure on Tibet and the dispute over Sinkiang. Both India and China were demanding Japanese support for their designs on Bhutan, Nepal, Sinkiang, and Tibet. However, with a war raging, Umezu assumed the post, a major victory for Japanese militarists.
If we do not act, history will cast its verdict with those terrible, chilling words, 'Too late.'” There was a deafening silence in Parliament as Winston Churchill, leader of the opposition, finished his speech. Paraphrasing one of his better-known phrases from the pre-war days, the silence echoed in quiet reverberation as the Conservatives once again laid down the gauntlet of military preparedness. With the five years of Attlee’s government coming to a close in July 1950, the necessity of a general election was causing rumblings throughout the island, as a slow economic decline, financial despair, a chill over Europe, and worries over the security of the country pulled the electorate in many directions. Most confidently predicted sweeping gains for the Conservatives, some venturing as far as to point to a sure Churchill election. The American expulsion of the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS or MI6) representative in Washington, Harold “Kim” Philby, had only added to Labour woes. The lack of protest over Philby’s recall added weight to rumors of spying and communist infiltration.
The expulsion of SIS representative “Kim” Philby from Washington was an embarassment for the Attlee government
Other names were being thrown about, from Donald MacLean, prospective head of the American Department in the Foreign Office, to Sir Roger Hollis of MI6. It was a threatening scandal that did not seem to go away easily. With an overwhelming majority in Parliament, however, Prime Minister Attlee appeared willing to ride out his term to the full five years, feeling safe from the tremondous Labour defection required for a no-confidence motion.
The Prime Minister was attempting, meanwhile, to reassemble a Three Powers Conference – Britain, France, and the Soviet Union – to discuss some of the growing issues regarded the European settlement hammered out at Versailles and Orleans. Protests by DeGaulle’s government over rumored shipments of valuable works of art from museums in the RPF and the RSI went practically unanswered. In the words of one French official, ”the Musée Gadagne is a testament to the architecture of empty warehouses.” Also unanswered were concerns over Poland, where the June election returns pointed to an overwhelming Communist victory. Charges of voter fraud, however, were immediately leveled against Gomulka’s coalition, and the rejection of Sikorski and Bor-Komorowski’s calls for an investigation seemed to be only adding fuel to a worsening situation in the country.
Nations sign the First Protocols of the OTO Accords
In Washington, the first protocols of the Oceanic Treaty Organization, derisively referred to by some with the German pronunciation, ”otto”, were signed between the United States, Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, Oman, Iraq, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, the United States of Central America, Gran Colombia, Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. Although these First Protocols were more of a treaty of friendship, they were clearly a first step in the fusion of the old Western Alliance with the Pan-American Union, the fruition of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. With a strong anti-communist bulwark in mind, Dulles, in conjunction with President Lindbergh, framed the first charter to be a declaration of principles:
1) The assertion of individual liberty
2) The promotion of capitalist economies
3) The adoption of international cooperation
2) The promotion of capitalist economies
3) The adoption of international cooperation
These First Protocols, sometimes referred to as the Charter of Three, essentially committed the parties to a world view diametrically opposed to that of the Comintern, though no mention of communism or the Soviet Union was ever mentioned in the OTO Accords. Dulles immediately went to work on additional protocols, which would spell out the organization of OTO, establish a framework for military cooperation, as well as assert positions on various international issues.
A first issue for OTO was clearly the Asian War, where the first tendrils of American aid, indirect and secretive, was arriving in Japan. It was fortuitous timing, for, as the Japanese attache in Manila mentioned to his American counterpart, ”the first anti-tank guns that arrived in Shanghai on the 2nd of June had less than one hundred miles to travel before being thrown into action against the Communists.” Rumors of Prime Minister Tojo’s retirement, supposedly for health reasons, was sparking a political battle between his heir apparent, Yoshijiro Umezu, aging general and strong proponent of the war in Asia, and moderate opponents.
Yoshijiro Umezu – Japan’s new Prime Minister
Backed by the Imperial Army and elevated through great pressure, he quickly ran into conflict as his rivals rallied around Kantaro Suzuki. Suzuki did not favor the carte blanche backing of the Kiri government in China, pointing to aggressive Chinese pressure on Tibet and the dispute over Sinkiang. Both India and China were demanding Japanese support for their designs on Bhutan, Nepal, Sinkiang, and Tibet. However, with a war raging, Umezu assumed the post, a major victory for Japanese militarists.
Last edited:
With a new Japanese government (or PM at least) and an American President, serving his last term, there might an opening for a more formal alliance between the two countries. At least as long as the SU poses a threat.
Can only wait with baited breath to see what hits the fan next!
Question, how far has McCarthy gone with his Red Witch Hunt? Has he started taking on the military brass? Or will he pass on that idea?
Question, how far has McCarthy gone with his Red Witch Hunt? Has he started taking on the military brass? Or will he pass on that idea?
I can't believe the Chinese are arguing for those annexations at this point; they're on the ropes in a war with Russia. India's choice is much more plausible, however.
We are talking about the Chinese after all... when does their logic match the rest of the world's?
Thank you, thank you! Truth be told, I was a little worried about how you guys would receive it. ^_^;;;
Evil Capitalist: I can't claim credit for that (I think someone mentioned it further up the thread, about the time that Met reported the collapse). And now that I think about it, although the defeat at the hands of the USSR -could- very, very, very easily be ascribed to a "stab in the back", I don't think you could say the same about the Vienna Pact Germans being owned in Pakistan. That was years after the initial incident, there was no separate stab, and although getting beaten once by untersmenschen (did I spell that correctly?) might be caused by a stabbination, I doubt a SECOND defeat -- this time by people not even white -- would enable racial myths to persist. Or maybe I just have too optimistic a view of human nature...
Mettermrck: I love the touch of a single OTO! Question, do Tibet, etc even have much of an army?
Evil Capitalist: I can't claim credit for that (I think someone mentioned it further up the thread, about the time that Met reported the collapse). And now that I think about it, although the defeat at the hands of the USSR -could- very, very, very easily be ascribed to a "stab in the back", I don't think you could say the same about the Vienna Pact Germans being owned in Pakistan. That was years after the initial incident, there was no separate stab, and although getting beaten once by untersmenschen (did I spell that correctly?) might be caused by a stabbination, I doubt a SECOND defeat -- this time by people not even white -- would enable racial myths to persist. Or maybe I just have too optimistic a view of human nature...
Mettermrck: I love the touch of a single OTO! Question, do Tibet, etc even have much of an army?
Mind Elemental said:
Easy, they lost because they are being led by moronic slav untermenschen instead of their own General Staff. The German Army always managed to explain their defeats by some evil outside influence - it was never their own fault.
I don't really see any way out here from the eventuality of a Soviet conquest of East Asia followed by a Cold War.
I wonder when Lindberg will choose to intervene...
Anyway, I love reading this AAR.
(That said, I didn't really believe the Irving thing. I find it difficult to belive Irving would gain any access to top nazis, nearly all of whom would be either dead or in some Soviet gulag somehwere).
Anyway, I love reading this AAR.
(That said, I didn't really believe the Irving thing. I find it difficult to belive Irving would gain any access to top nazis, nearly all of whom would be either dead or in some Soviet gulag somehwere).
I was working on the assumption that the west won the war, in which case all those at the Moscow trials, or at least a reasonable proportion, would still be alive and available for interviews.
Just to warn everyone, I'm on mandatory overtime until the new year, so updates will be sporadic but they will come, so if you don't see an update everyday as in happier times, the story is still progressing.
Mettermrck said:Just to warn everyone, I'm on mandatory overtime until the new year, so updates will be sporadic but they will come, so if you don't see an update everyday as in happier times, the story is still progressing.
The anticipation only heightens the joy upon delivery.
By no means an ‘expert’, I do enjoy tanks more then most. Having conceived my son in one, it holds fond (and perverted ) memories.
Ah, the M-26/ Soviet heavy tank debate. This will never be satisfied. Thicker armor/ slower speed. Bigger gun/ less ammo.
The Soviet beast discussed was a formidable monster. 122mm gun? WTF over? :wacko: We don’t use that size today (okay, the Russians do but their stuff sucks ). Armor protection was without a doubt the winner in this match. The sloped armor was a very wise move also. The “V” shaped front hull was an excellent idea brought to use, as was the reduction of one crewmember in the hull. The drivers hatch was located center of hull and had a periscope built in. Smart move until you consider the driver had to remove/ install the periscope every time he opened/ closed the hatch.
However, the tank is/was famous for breaking down. Even after every single upgrade made, it was known to break down. Usually when needed the most. No single one was ever proven in combat during WW2. Some will argue this but I go by the info acquired from the Soviet military and nowhere else.
28 rounds were carried for the main gun. 28? 18 for anti-personnel use and 10 for anti-tank.
The engine was unreliable as was the gearbox. The hull, having been welded had many breakdowns (welds cracking while under stress).
Last but not least, the crew compartment was very tight. This relates to crew fatigue.
Now for the M-26 piece of crap…..er……tank. The M-26 was considered a MEDIUM tank and should not be classified as a heavy. So, matching a ‘heavy’ vs. a ‘medium’ isn’t fair when comparing gun size/ armor thickness. I’ll leave that argument at that.
The original M-26 was WAY underpowered for it’s size. The same engine used in the M-4 was stuck in this larger vehicle. DUMB! Also the tank had a low fuel capacity. It couldn’t go far without needed a refill/ top off.
The crew was 5 man, so the tank had an extra machine-gun. The main gun also had 70 rounds to fire before needing a reload.
The M-26 AFTER it’s first upgrade to a bigger engine was excellent for it’s purpose. It could out maneuver it’s Soviet counterpart. It was also faster. The M-26 was built for a defensive role yet when COMBAT PROVEN, it helped the infantry in securing a vital bridge defended by the Germans. The tank also has an excellent battle record in Korea.
The Soviet tank unless CAPTURED and RE-FITTED with the enemy’s equipment had a much more dismal failure in combat.
That, to me, is the deciding factor. They both sucked but in their time they were both the best we each had for it’s role. I’d have to say, in open country, the Soviets would win but in a closer combat situation, the M-26 would win.
) memories.Ah, the M-26/ Soviet heavy tank debate. This will never be satisfied. Thicker armor/ slower speed. Bigger gun/ less ammo.
The Soviet beast discussed was a formidable monster. 122mm gun? WTF over? :wacko: We don’t use that size today (okay, the Russians do but their stuff sucks
). Armor protection was without a doubt the winner in this match. The sloped armor was a very wise move also. The “V” shaped front hull was an excellent idea brought to use, as was the reduction of one crewmember in the hull. The drivers hatch was located center of hull and had a periscope built in. Smart move until you consider the driver had to remove/ install the periscope every time he opened/ closed the hatch.However, the tank is/was famous for breaking down. Even after every single upgrade made, it was known to break down. Usually when needed the most. No single one was ever proven in combat during WW2. Some will argue this but I go by the info acquired from the Soviet military and nowhere else.
28 rounds were carried for the main gun. 28? 18 for anti-personnel use and 10 for anti-tank.
The engine was unreliable as was the gearbox. The hull, having been welded had many breakdowns (welds cracking while under stress).
Last but not least, the crew compartment was very tight. This relates to crew fatigue.
Now for the M-26 piece of crap…..er……tank. The M-26 was considered a MEDIUM tank and should not be classified as a heavy. So, matching a ‘heavy’ vs. a ‘medium’ isn’t fair when comparing gun size/ armor thickness. I’ll leave that argument at that.
The original M-26 was WAY underpowered for it’s size. The same engine used in the M-4 was stuck in this larger vehicle. DUMB! Also the tank had a low fuel capacity. It couldn’t go far without needed a refill/ top off.
The crew was 5 man, so the tank had an extra machine-gun. The main gun also had 70 rounds to fire before needing a reload.
The M-26 AFTER it’s first upgrade to a bigger engine was excellent for it’s purpose. It could out maneuver it’s Soviet counterpart. It was also faster. The M-26 was built for a defensive role yet when COMBAT PROVEN, it helped the infantry in securing a vital bridge defended by the Germans. The tank also has an excellent battle record in Korea.
The Soviet tank unless CAPTURED and RE-FITTED with the enemy’s equipment had a much more dismal failure in combat.
That, to me, is the deciding factor. They both sucked but in their time they were both the best we each had for it’s role. I’d have to say, in open country, the Soviets would win but in a closer combat situation, the M-26 would win.
You know a lot about tanks, cdat. I could never come up with this much about field artillery guns...
Good to know, Mettermrck! Keep 'em coming!
Good to know, Mettermrck! Keep 'em coming!
Well he did drive them for a while. Very intresting though, all I know about tanks is from the history channel.
Thanks for the information, cdat. I appreciate as I'll likely need it in the future.
Last edited: