Talk:Outline of GW2

Goering?

Someone mentioned a preference not to use Herman Goering for the HRE's Luftwaffe. Was doing a bit of research and found some alternate candidates:

• Wolfram von Richtofen (1895-1945), cousin of the famous "Red Baron" who achieved the rank for Field Marshal before dying of a brain tumor.
• Robert von Greim (1892-1945) was Goering's replacement *here* but committed suicide rather than fall into Soviet hands. He was recipient of the 'Pour le merite' (aka the Blue Max).
• Ernst Udet (1896-1941) was the highest-scoring Ace to survive WWI. A very talented man, he was also a playboy with numerous lovers (unlike, evidently, Goering). He hated bureacracy and when put in administrative post became an alcoholic and drug addict. He committed suicide.
• Max Immelmann (1890-1916) was the first German Ace to recieve the Blue Max and was known as the "Eagle of Lille." Interestingly, he was actually South African but became a German citizen while studying medicine in Germany before the war. Killed in action.
• Oswald Boelcke (1891-1916) was considered the father of German air-fighter doctrine and was idolized by many of his students, including the Red Baron. Killed in an accidental air-collision with another German ace (who had to be restrained from committing suicide upon realizing what had happened). Zahir 22:03, 23 October 2005 (PDT)

All these gentlemen could of course work for me, but wouldn't it be wiser to use a fictional person instead, as Marc suggested? Something like "Ernst Wolfram von Gehringer", or whatever else you'd like? The same mechanism you applied in your Georg and Lucas Spieldorf. That would IMO more be in the style of IB! --IJzeren Jan 23:29, 23 October 2005 (PDT)

I like that. How about we take all the really juicy bits from the above cluster of fellows and combine'em into Ernst Wolfram von Gehringer'? Zahir 06:26, 24 October 2005 (PDT)

The Balkans?

I indicated in this article that a lot of the fighting took place in the Balkans. There was a reason for this. I've seen no hint that France was laid waste, which would be my sense of what would happen if modern mechanized warfare were fought there unceasingly for the better part of a decade. Nor would I want to suggest such a thing without checking with the caretaker for France--tis just too extreme. But it makes more sense in terms of that that both sides showed some restraint vis-a-vis France, recalling what happened last time. There's also the fact that Winston Churchill *here* had something of a mania about the Balkans. He diverted essential men and material to the Balkans and as a result nearly lost the Suez Canal. Later, he fought furiously against Operation Overlord in favor of an attack what he called "the soft underbelly of Europe" (which was anything but--those mountainous areas would have been hell to try and take in the kind of assault he insisted upon). If in fact the Allied Powers took that advice in IB, it would divert resources away from the French front by both sides, but would also help account for the extraordinary length of the Second Great War. Does this make sense to folks? Any objections? I'm not talking about a detailed proposal emerging anytime soon, just a rough outline of what happened. Zahir 09:57, 26 October 2005 (PDT)

Asia

Beijing seem to have been destroyed *twice* during the war. Typo or did Joe intend it to be that bad ?--Marc Pasquin 15:07, 3 November 2005 (PST)

I dunno. But my presumption is that something is wrong here. My knowledge of the Great Oriental War is rather limited. Just went by the article here. Zahir 16:11, 3 November 2005 (PST)

V1 V2

Just read a specific reference in IB news that Germany/Prussia used V1 & V2 rockets on France and England during the War. Other than being rocket weapons of some kind, this does not necessarily follow that such were approximately the same as those in WW2. But something to consider. Zahir 18:53, 7 December 2005 (PST)

Russia invades Maasai? (!)

I'm a bit surprised by this. Why would Russia care about Maasai? BoArthur 15:01, 31 January 2006 (PST)

Because it was colonised by Lithuania in the 30s and thus was part of Lithuania; Russians occupied mainland Lithuania and thus wanted to overtake its' still loyal colonies in Africa and Antarctica as well. You can read more at Thunderstorm War (last sectionabout Southern Lands and New Lithuania) about the war, Maasai for history of Maasai, Pakštija about the briefly lived white-ruled state that existed as a consequence of peace treaty with Russia which required the colony to become independent and denounce loyalty to Lithuanian government-in-exile and Colonies of Lithuania for Lithuanian colonial campaign in the 20s and 30s in general. Abdul-aziz 15:06, 31 January 2006 (PST)

It just seems to me a stretch that land-locked Russia would ship its troops through more-or-less hostile foreign territories on their way to land-locked Maasai in Africa. It seems to me a VERY big expenditure of energy and manpower for VERY little gain. BoArthur 16:01, 31 January 2006 (PST)

I must agree with the most esteemed Mr. BoArthur on that Russia could no way invade Maasai. Russia has two more or less useful accesses to sae: Petrograd (no Murmansk *there*) or Sevastopol. From both to Africa it is a hell long way and to make amphibious assault without rear support is impossible. *Here* the Operation Torch (US/UK took part of Vichy nothern Africa) was supported from Britain (Gibraltar) and Portugal (not really sure), moreover, US needed to have carrier and lotta other heavy ships for support. Next, only Petrograd could be used, because Bosporus and Dardanels would be closed for surface ships during war (as *here*); see Greece hold the European bank and Turks the Asian one. And could you imagine the trip with invasion fleet from P-burg to almost central Africa without possibility to refuel? Me not. And believe me, I conquered world many times ;) being a fanatic gamer of Hearts of Iron II. Jan II. 23:15, 31 January 2006 (PST)

How about a Russo-Ethiopian pact? They're both Orthodox Christian nations after all. --Sikulu 00:30, 1 February 2006 (PST)

That, to me sounds like a viable option. And either Russia could've airshipped men and materiel to Ethiopia prior to the invasion, or they could've had Ethiopia invade on their behalf. This is now sounding possible. BoArthur 11:02, 1 February 2006 (PST)

I would like to note that Maasai was not landlocked back then (the coastline of Maasai was annexed by China to Chinese East Africa in 1942, when the Chinese invaded Pakštija). Indeed, preparations took time - continental Lithuania was fully annexed in the 30th of October, while the start of invasion to Maasai was only in late November. Basically, Russia did not need many troops, as there were not many defending soldiers, as well Lithuanians made only a few percent of population in the colony, number of Slavs was actually higher than that of Lithuanians there and the majority was black; Russia probably expected support of local Slavs and maybe blacks during the takeover. If not the Disaster of Indian Ocean, when Russian transports were sunk, this would probably have been what happened; however after the disaster, Russians decided not to send additional troops and negotiated peace instead. While indeed it could be decided that someone supported Russia, I don't think that would be Ethiopia - Ethiopia could have overtook Maasai immediatly and for itself, no Russians would be needed; but, however, Ethiopia was occupied with fighting for much greater tracts of land in the west and, as well, Maasai was seen as a useful borderland preventing a possible Chinese invasion should later the Ethiopian-Chinese relations detarioriate. Russians maybe could have been supported by some local smaller nation, such as the Thousand Emirates, though I am not sure what the reasons for such support would then have been - maybe financial aid or such. Abdul-aziz 15:18, 1 February 2006 (PST)

A couple comments: 1) do we have a map of the area at the time? 2) I think the commentary you've adjusted on the Maasai page has helped a lot, but that still leaves the questions of 1: Why Russia cared about the backwater nation? Was it the Slavs? 2: How did they get a fleet down there to begin with? BoArthur 15:40, 1 February 2006 (PST)

A map of interwar Lithuania is available at Apskritis, on the lower left corner it shows Maasai (Naujojo Vilniaus apskritis) as well. Slavs would have an important reason, yes. Getting a foothold in east Africa (and especially one with considerable ammount of Slavic population) might as well been important, and, another political reason would have been to completely annex Lithuania so that no obviously not pro-Russian Lithuanian government would actually have sovereignity over any of the Lithuanian lands. Probably the ships would have came from east Russia (Pacific coast), as Russia would have been more likely to get support along that path and it's I think even shorter or similar lenght as sailing from Petrograd or Sevastopol around Africa. Abdul-aziz 16:29, 1 February 2006 (PST)

Perhaps the Russians could provide assistance to the Ethiopians in case of further Chinese aggression? --Sikulu 03:25, 2 February 2006 (PST)

I've been a bit distracted by other things lately, and only now say the discussion that's going on. Well, here's a Russian point of view:

I agree with Jan II that invading Maasai would be pretty much of a stretch for Russia. Especially if it should have taken place as early as 1939. No, Russia definitely had other fish to fry: the Baltic states, the Caucasus, Nassina... Frankly, I can't see how Russia would have wasted so much of its energy on a so relatively unimportant place in Africa. Besides, why would Russia want that land anyway? It's not exactly what one would call "Slavic heartland"; from an ideological point of view such an attack would hardly be justifiable.

The most likely candidates for an invasion would IMO indeed be Ethiopia and Chinese East Africa. Both would make sense. Keep in mind that China and Russia were still sort of allied at the time, although it was not exactly what one would call a happy marriage. If anything, I think it would be either Ethiopia or Chinese East Africa invading Maasai, probably with Russia agreeing but not with direct Russian military support. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 05:53, 2 February 2006 (PST)

The lithuanian colonies would probably have been in a similar situation to colonies *here* of german-occupied european countries: either they could have sides with the colaborationists government (and been told to do nothing) or with the government in exile (and being left alone as a waste of resources). The other option would be for an ally of russia to have been given free reigns (such as ethiopia mentioned). --Marc Pasquin 07:54, 3 February 2006 (PST)