Talk:Second Great War

From IBWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

I'm preparing something about an incident in GW2 involving the Solemn League Navy and was perusing stuff about this conflict. One thing in particular I would like to challenge/suggest be altered. The idea that the Kriegsmarine was pretty small. Now, I'll admit my primary purpose here is to propose a really thrilling chapter of naval warfare, but the premise of a small Kriegsmarine also strikes me as untenable for several reasons:

  • In any war with the FK, the Holy Roman Empire would need a powerful navy. Unless populations *there* are dramatically different, then the supply line to the island of Great Britain is the Achilles Heel of the FK and any strategist who could win a game of chess would know it.
  • Events *here* led to the build-up of a first-rate German Fleet prior to WWI. There was enormous competition going on, and the Kriegsmarine was a way for the Kaiser to be on a more equal footing with the British monarch, especially since Germany lacked large overseas colonies. All these conditions are equally present in IB's history.
  • The end of GW1 was not punitive, so there is no reason to believe the mighty German fleet would be scrapped as it was *here* so why assume it would be especially smaller by the time the Second Great War began?
  • A large, powerful navy is just too useful in any war, much less one that spans much of the globe. Given that GW2 went on so long, and that the full military might of the NAL and the FK were joined from the start, that means the Allianz almost certainly had to have real parity when it came to all branches of the military.

With the above in mind, I would suggest the following scenario: At the end of GW1, all the major powers more-or-less voluntarily reduced their navies. As the years go by and the economy goes through some hard times (not the Great Depression but a downturn), some ships are put in mothballs while others are upgraded. As Hessler's regime begins its successful program of rebuilding the Empire's might with Prussia at the helm, those ships are taken out of retirement and all of them are upgraded. New construction--not covert as *here* because no Versailles treaty--commences. Smaller ships at first, but also a line of powerful new battleships. These would be the equivalent of the Bismarck in WW2 (which I plan on calling the Ludendorff for GW2). More than one of these titans are built, and more would be save for successful lobbying by Admiral Doenitz for a much-expanded u-boat arm. So when the War commences, the Holy Roman Empire has a larger fleet than did Nazi Germany--more U-boats, a core of upgraded older ships, and at least three or more brand-new, top-line capital battleships. The point being that the FK and NAL navies have a foe than, even combined, they dare not dismiss.

That's my POV anyway. Zahir 19:05, 17 October 2005 (PDT)

Keep in mind that Germany does not have navy of its own. Mecklenburg never had a navy, while Prussia once experimented with a navy but since it could never succesfully compete against the Danish/Norwegian navy, it concentrated its efforts instead to creating the best army in the world. The only German states that has a navy are Scandinavian states; i.e., Oldenburg and Holstein.
Hessler's regime might have certainly been interested in ensuring a powerful Scandinavian Navy and so he might even have finance the building of the Ludendorff and other capital ships. But even so, the Scandinavian Navy would not have engaged the Commonwealth Navy because of its neutrality.
Of course, this changed somewhat when Hessler invaded Preimarn (a Scandinavian state). GW2 was essentially a German civil war that spilled across the borders. After the invasion of Preimarn, the Scandinavian Navy in Oldenburg and Holstein split there and then. The ships that sided with Hessler started to do battle with the rest of the navy that were still loyal to their Scandinavian sovereign.
I'm not sure how all this will affect your POV.
Boreanesia 06:52, 19 October 2005 (PDT)
Well, here's my problem. How could Germany have sustained itself in not one but two world wars (in effect) without a strong navy? Not the most powerful navy around, but one that could at least stand up to the big boys. My original point about the KF's vulnerability stands. Without that, if the FK is even comparable to the UK at the onset of WW2 *here* then Germany is in serious trouble, especially when it comes to the Mediterranean. *Here* that very nearly became an Axis Lake, with the war largely fought on land in North Africa. But supply for the Afrika Korps was always a problem because the British Navy--even reduced as it was by events--had a firm foothold in the Mediterranean. For GW2, operations in the North Mediterranean would seem to bring up similar issues. Italy is vulnerable to attack from the Balkans, while they likewise are vulnerable to attack from Italy or Southern France. Supply lines for both Allianz and Allies would have to go via the sea much of the time, and that is also a point of vulnerability--especially for the Greeks pursuing what must be amphibious operations in Asia Minor!
If I have to, I can scrap my whole idea about the Ludendorff which would be a pity but hardly a tragedy. I can buy the notion that Hessler pretty much went with an all u-boat naval arm (which is what Hitler eventually did *here*), and with much larger, more powerful u-boats. But without a strong navy of some kind, the only way to account for the war lasting as long as it did is to assume the FK and NAL and others had more-or-less completely disarmed their navies, as in not putting their ships in mothballs but selling them for scrap, disbanding most of the navy, reducing the officers to a tiny fraction of what they had been. Now, why would they do that? Granted, the Allies *here* allowed their militaries to shrink but that wouldn't be enough. Their navies at the very least would have to have been gutted.
I really think the Kriegsmarine needs to exist and be powerful in some form. Otherwise the FK and her allies are just too strong. Their supply lines are much too intact, the manuverability of their troops is too easy, the potential for disrupting German/Allianz operations too great. GW2 lasted longer than WW2. That has to be accounted for in terms of industry and strategy. Zahir 07:15, 19 October 2005 (PDT)
What the Royal (British) Navy is to the Commonwealth, the Luftwaffe is to the German Empire. I don't think a Kriegsmarine is necessary to offer logistical support against allied ships when there's a Luftwaffe.
*Here*, the British realized too late that battleships alone are no good against Japanese planes. Japanese air superiority enabled the utter destruction of the supposed Allied trump card: the battleships HMS Prince of Wales and the HMS Repulse. See here for more details. Ironically, the Japanese themselves made the same mistake against the USA when they had concentrated their efforts on building battleships rather than aircraft carriers.
I suppose, then, that in IB, the Luftwaffe, due to their technological superiority in aircraft designs, basically had air superiority from the start of the war. Keep in mind that the typical cultural mentality of the Commonwealth countries is that of Top Nation. Commonwealth countries must have mistakenly assumed from the start, like the Brits did *here* with regards to the Japs, that their navy was superior and more civilized to the Luftwaffe. Perhaps the Commonwealth did not even have an air force (let alone a naval air branch), thinking that such means of warfare was an uncivilized way to conduct battle. They probably still do.
Boreanesia 08:33, 19 October 2005 (PDT)
Hmmmmmmm. I'm still having a serious problem with this. After all, one of the real strengths of an airplane in attacking a capital ship is that there are multiple planes and that they are physically small. Methinks the way to make this work is to make some assumptions about military airships of the GW2 era (and beyond):
  • Camophlage <sp?>. Quite simply, airships must be very hard to spot from an altitude that still makes operational sense.
  • Radar. *Here* the English made the great breakthrough which gave them a big head start in arial combat. Everyone was trying to develop it, but the Brits were by far the most advanced. For IB it would make more sense for the KF and its allies to have pretty much ignored the subject, giving German scientists the lead.
  • Torpedoes. To be effective, German airships will need a kind of torpedo that can be dropped from high altitude, not only survive but continue to function after it hits the water. Probably this would mean a parachute to slow descent, then some kind of correcting mechanism to bring it into position and a homing system. Based on magnetics most likely, to aim for metal hulls.
  • Bomb-sights. This was a constant problem in WW2, that belief in bombsights out-weighed actual performance. Yet an airship might have a real advantage here, because its flight would probably be more steady. And in dropping such from great heights, they'd presumably stumble on the same simple little technique worked out by the squadron that dropped the A-bombs on Japan--namely, including something to stead the head of the bombadier as he gazes into the sight. Zahir 08:57, 19 October 2005 (PDT)
Just to throw an oar in here, I have to disagree with Kristian on the subject of the HRE never having had a Navy of its own quite strongly. It's been QSS ever since the first post on GW2 (message #5578 in the Conculture Archives) that the HRE does have its own Navy, as they attempted a sea-bourne invasion of the FK which was thwarted to a large extent by the Arvorec Navy. It might not have been strong, but it was certainly there. Deiniol 15:07, 19 October 2005 (PDT)


So, we've got Kristian under the impression that there is no HRE navy, and Deiniol saying that they do have one that was routed by the Arvorec Navy in an attempted german invasion of the FK. So...let's find the "middle road" with QSS. BoArthur 15:24, 19 October 2005 (PDT)

It could be that what the Arvorec Navy encountered were French navy vessels that had been captured by the Germans. The fact is, the Holy Roman Empire *here* never had a navy, and its doubtful that it would *there*.
This does not mean that the coastal states of the HRE did not have their own navies. Among the German states that had their own navies *here* were Holstein (via Denmark-Norway), Hither Pommerania (via Sweden-Finland), and Brandeburg/Prussia. Mecklenburg, although a coastal state, never had a navy of its own, relying instead on its neighbours for naval defense.
Actually, the Prussian navy almost completely ceased to exist when King Frederik the Great of Prussia completely abandoned it because he knew it simply could not compete against the navies of Denmark-Norway, Sweden-Finland, and Russia — a lesson Prussia learn many times and even as recently as the two Schleswig-Holstein wars when tiny little Denmark could easily enforce a naval blockade against Prussian ports. Instead, Prussia concentrated its efforts on creating Europe's best army. In fact, during the Second Schleswig-Holstein War, while Prussia and Austria together were no match for the Danish navy, the Danish army could not compete against the might of the Prussian army.
Now, with a united Scandinavia *there*, I really cannot see Prussia interested in maintaining a navy. IMO, it would have continued to neglect its navy until it completely ceased to exist, opting instead to follow Mecklenburg's example of relying on its neighbours for naval defense. In fact, one of the reasons why Prussia twice joined the League of Armed Neutrality *here* was to rely on it to defend its merchant ships against Britain. If Prussia still does have a navy *there* (which I really doubt), it would be an extremely tiny and neglected force.
See here for more info on the Prussian navy.
Boreanesia 18:33, 19 October 2005 (PDT)

If they got routed by the arvorec navy, thats pretty much the same as saying they have no navy.....
Seriously, the german navy was probably like its army, a multinational affair dominated by prussia. At the begining of the war, a lot of the scandinavian-states based ships mutinied order to attack and defected to the SR. A few however, either for ideological reason ("Yeah Greater Germania !") or simply to a larger-then-average number of prussian/saxon/related states sailors and officers.
This rag tag flotilla fared quite badly (in the afored mentioned disastrous attack) and it was decided to decommission the ships and the canons & sailors were recycled into coastal defence.
Hows that ? --Marc Pasquin 18:34, 19 October 2005 (PDT)
That sounds reasonable. Although I still insist that the so-called "German Navy" before the mutiny was synonymous with the Scandinavian Navy. Those that mutinied defected to Germany, rather than the other way around. Boreanesia 18:42, 19 October 2005 (PDT)
Okay. And then--it seems to me--the HRE would have figured that since it couldn't compete in terms of naval strength, it would excell with its Luftwaffe, creating the premier air service in the world at the time (and the full implications of same were pretty much missed by most other nations). How does that sound? Zahir 19:51, 19 October 2005 (PDT)
I still maintain my dissent. Remember that GW1 ended in stalemate and (after partial disarmament post-Versailles) was followed by an arms race throughout the 20's and 30's. Also, the HRE was a more unitary state then than it is now- its current fragmented state is due to the effects of GW2. I doubt very much that Hessler would have been happy to leave his naval defence solely in the hands of the SR, IMO it's more likely that the HRE would have expanded its navy during the inter-war years- Bremerhaven was also a shipbuilding centre, and I can't see Hanover staying out of the fray. Also, I did not say that the German Navy was routed by the Arvorec- far from it. I always envisioned the naval conflict in the British Sea to be something of a naval "Battle of Britain" rather than a simple rout of captured French ships. Deiniol 05:36, 20 October 2005 (PDT)
No secret that I agree with Deiniol. To build a strong navy you need several things: (1) The industrial resources (2) The expertise (3) Access to at least one port, and (4) Time. Seems to me that during the reign of Kaiser Wilhelm II all these were available. And while the HRE might not think it could build a fleet the equal of the SR, that is hardly an inherent reason not to have one at all. The whole point is that a Kriegsmarine would be inherently useful against other enemies, such as France, Italy, the FK and even Russia. Convoys of supply from America *here* en route via the Arctic Sea were routine targets of Hitler's navy. And the situation in IB's Mediterranean simply calls out for some kind of naval presence. Even if the Kriegsmarine is designed to play a secondary role to the Luftwaffe, surface ships and U-boats are part of any rational defense. Indeed, the construction of a few new Battleships would distract the Allies, since they'd pay more attention to *those* than to the build-up of the mighty Luftwaffe, which would probably (in this scenario) be the largest and most advanced air fleet in the world by the time the War began. Zahir 07:10, 20 October 2005 (PDT)
But there is one very important aspect you guys seem to be forgetting, namely that Oldenburg and Holstein, which are part of the HRE, are also a part of the SR. Even by the time the HRE became a more unitary state, the SR navy was still bound to provide it with naval defense, just as if it were part of the HRE. Thus, the HRE did not have the incentive to have its very own navy when there was already one present bound to defend it. Of course, things changed quite a bit when Hessler decided to invade Rygen — but nobody could have foreseen that. Don't forget, GW2 was essentially a German civil war, and the SR navy split into two factions just like the rest of the HRE.
As for the Mediterranean presence, I'm sure this could have been provided by the German Luftwaffe along with Dalmatian and Greek vessels taken and commissioned into German service. Don't forget that the Dalmatia is the regional naval power.
Boreanesia 11:29, 20 October 2005 (PDT)
Yes. The Danubian Navy, once Danubia was overrun by the Allianz, was scattered. Some of the ships escaped and joined Allied fleets, some were scuttled. But a good portion - both of the Adriatic and Black Sea Fleets - were probably captured and pressed into service with the Germans (Adriatic) and the Greeks (Black Sea)... (Dalmatinac)

Um, no offence but I think you're missing something. How would Hessler (or anyone) know that the only use they'd have for a Navy would be in self-defense? Sure, some states and governments would be perfectly willing to depend on somebody else to handle their military needs. But does the HRE strike anybody as that kind of state, to depend on somebody else--no matter how good a pal--for an entire branch of their military? Given that Hessler had (evidently) every intention of resuming the fight with the Allies and knew he could not count on SR support in that. Zahir 13:28, 20 October 2005 (PDT)

No, Kristian, I'm not forgetting that at all- in fact, that's why I think Hessler would have attempted to build up a Navy not connected to the SR. The fact that the bulk of the HRE "Navy" was in the hands of what is still an essentially foreign power (and, no matter how close the condominium, that's what the SR was to the major part of Germany) would have been more than a reason for Hessler to build up a navy independent of SR control. Also, recall that the SR was a minor part of the HRE- only two states out of 20. It'd be like the UK entrusting its entire infanty force to the Dorset and Somerset Yeomanry!
Also, this raises an interesting point. Whose side was the SR on in GW1? Deiniol 15:38, 20 October 2005 (PDT)
While Hessler would gladly use the ships of the SR, I agree that the SR wouldn't be keen to foot the bill in lives and costs of a navy that was only really mandated for a very small portion of its populace, that of Oldenburg and Schleswig-Holstein. I hardly doubt that Bonny King Christian would say "Here Hessler, please, have fun with my extensive, expensive Navy because I happen to be subject to you because of two very small spits of earth..."
I see it fitting better to have an HRE Navy/Kriegsmarine and a part of the SR Navy, thus allowing the later "ships turning on one-another" when the SR later declared war on Germany and itself over Rygen. The part would be ships that were directly allied to Schleswig-Holstein and Oldenburg...I don't see Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Danish and other ships fighting for Germany, to whom they were not in allegiance. BoArthur
Indeed nobody could know at the time that the only use they would have for the navy was for defense, just as nobody could know that Hessler would invade Rygen. Had he not invaded Rygen, then he would have still been able to rely on the SR navy. Besides, "defense" is a relative term. Hessler could have still used the SR navy to harass the allies in the name of defense. He could have still used the SR navy to conduct preemptive strikes in the name of defense. The HRE did not need its own navy for that.
It is not a fair comparison to say that it would be "like the UK entrusting its entire infantry force to the Dorset and Somerset Yeomanry". If the HRE was interested in Germanizing the SR navy, all it had to do was finance the expansion of the SR fleet in Friederichshaven and Kiel, and ensure that ratings arrived from other German states. This could be easily achieved, especially when Oldenburg and Holstein were effectively gleichgeschaltet in the 1920s and the HRE became a more unitary state. In fact, I'm certain they did just that. Don't forget how many more Germans there are than Scandinavians, and indeed, the SR is only a minor part of the HRE. On the other hand, it is an important part of its coastline since virtually all of the HRE's major ports are in SR territory.
With regards to whose side the SR was on in GW1, it was on the HRE's side. Unlike the GW2, the first war was not a German civil war. So as long as Oldenburg and Holstein are part of both the SR and the HRE, and as long as Oldenburg and Holstein are not against the policies of the HRE as a whole, then the SR is obliged to be on the HRE's side.
Boreanesia 17:19, 20 October 2005 (PDT)
This is sounding like there's a compromise in sight. How about this? The Kriegsmarine was developed by the HRE but technically remained a part of the SR Navy--not a large part but neither was it an tiny one. When GW2 broke out, the navy split. Most if not all Kriegsmarine units sided with Hessler, along with perhaps a few other ships. This was the naval force used by the HRE during the war and which was turned back in an abortive attempt to cross the channel. After that, it was mostly used for the defensive and for operations in the Mediterranean. The bulk of missions that would usually have been assigned to the navy was instead given to the Luftwaffe. Another possible curlicue--perhaps the Kriegsmarine was a specialized corps? Maybe it consisted almost entirely of U-boats? This would make its defeat in the Channel more likely, because in a relatively narrow area and against warships knowing what they were up against the U-boats have their advantages shaved some. Zahir 17:54, 20 October 2005 (PDT)
Sounds about right. So the term Kriegsmarine was applied to those that sided with the HRE after the break-up of the SR navy. Boreanesia 18:20, 20 October 2005 (PDT)
I just thought of a potential problem, though. According to the article, the split occured only when Hessler invaded Rygen. Your proposal would only make sense if the split occured before. Perhaps we need to tweak the article a bit in that direction. Boreanesia 18:31, 20 October 2005 (PDT)
Or, was there a further split? Those that felt to side with the SR when they heard word of the Rygen invasion? Could that be it, and thus there would need to be more information added for what happened before that split? I could see boats of Mecklenbergian extraction and so forth withdrawing from the Kriegsmarine and shooting at the others, as Mecklenberg was lead by the uncle of the SR Queen. (And the SR Queen's father and brother were killed by Hessler's operatives). What do y'all think of that? BoArthur

Sounds good to me. Two splits then. One at pretty much the outset of th war, and another (just when Hessler could least afford it) upon the invasion of Rygen. Zahir 18:52, 20 October 2005 (PDT)

Some belated comments on the discussion above

Hmmm... After having read this whole discussion, I still feel something is missing, although I can't precisely tell what. I agree with some of the others that there should have been sóme kind of Kriegsmarine. And somehow I don't buy the idea that this entire Kriegsmarine was "developed by the HRE but technically remained a part of the SR Navy". Although Holstein, Lybæk and Oldenburg are condominia, we can have several solutions to our problem: either that any navy stationed there is primarily the navy of the state(let) itself, or that it partly belongs to the HRE and partly to the SR, or that it belongs to both. Kristian, do you have a clear picture of how these condominia actually work? From what I have read about Vanuatu, the situation was pretty much like this: there was an English police force and a French police force, there were English prisons and French prisons, there was English border control and French border control, etc. According to which law a criminal was judged depended pretty much on which side the policeman who caught him belonged to. If a similar situation be the case in Oldenburg and Holstein, that could pretty well mean the existence of a German navy that was nót part of the SR at all!

And there's another thing: although it has been mentioned, it has not really been discussed. Holstein and Oldenburg are not the only German states with access to the sea. Prussia itself and Mecklenburg had access to the Baltic Sea; mind, Preymern is a postwar creation and was a fully integrated part of Prussia by then. And even though Mecklenburg relied on the defense of others, I'm sure Prussia did not. Some kind of navy in Stettin, Schwinemünde or Kolberg seems more likely that not. And if HRE-SR relations were really that good, the Kattegat might not have been a serious problem. Besides, I suppose the original purpose of this navy was directed eastward (Russia, Lithuania, etc.) rather than westward.

Furthermore, there are no less than three states with direct access to the North Sea that do not belong to the SR: Hannover, Bremen and Hamburg. I don't know if any of those had something like a navy before GW1. But all three were captured and gleichgeschaltet by Prussia in the 1920s. And it's for certain that if there wasn't a navy in 1920, Hessler might have decided to build one after that, using Bremerhafen, Cuxhafen or Hamburg as a base. I've seen it mentioned that there wouldn't have been a real reason to do that, and that's undoubtedly true. But keep in mind people like Hessler don't always think rationally. Otherwise he wouldn't have invaded the RTC in the first place. He might just have thought: "Hey, those damned Brits rule the seas and all that, but they're old-fashioned and decadent, so let's give it a try and outweigh them!" Perhaps he had an adviser to made some proposals in that direction that seemed attractive to the Hessler and the Kaiser himself. Perhaps he was envious of all kinds of countries having colonies in America, Asia and Africa, while Germany had nothing. And perhaps, just perhaps, he already had an invasion of Scandinavia and the British Isles in mind.

All in all, I don't see why Germany couldn't have built a Kriegsmarine in the 1930s. It definitely had the resources: the absence of a crisis affects on only the FK and the NAL, but also Germany. And it may very well have had the will. I don't know what the final result would look like: perhaps it was just a relatively small combination of navies from Hannover, Prussia and Danzig (?) with the German part of the navies of Oldenburg and Holstein. If so, the snoring (no pun intended) name "Kriegsmarine" was quite an exaggeration.

And yes, after conquering France and the Batavian Kingdom, it might have incorporated Batavian and French ships, too.


Good point about the german states, at the very least, they probably had custom ships that could ahve been converted.
About Batavia and France, I get the feeling they would have done the same thing as *here* if push came to shove and scutled the ships. --Marc Pasquin 16:37, 22 October 2005 (PDT)
The way the condominia works in Holstein, Oldenburg and Lybæk is different than *here's* Vanuatu. These states are in a personal union with the Scandinavian monarch. That is to say that, while they may have their own government institutions (like their own parliament, armed forces, police force, prisons, etc.), their sovereignty still lies with the Scandinavian monarch — not with the German Kaiser. The catch is, this very same monarch is technically also a German prince, who is a vassal of the German Kaiser. This means that the government institutions of these states are subject to conditions of homage and fealty towards the HRE. The HRE itself does not have any government institutions within these states. When these states were gleichgeschaltet, their sovereignty was still with the Scandinavian monarch, but their government insitutions were no longer controlled by the locals, but by Prussia. Likewise, the naval fleet in Friederichshafen and Kiel became dominated by Prussia. It's no wonder many north German states were opposed to Prussian centralism.
It's true that Holstein and Oldenburg are not the only German states with access to the sea, but (based on the various German navies from *here*) the main naval bases have always been located there and they certainly seem to have the most suitable harbours; Kiel and Friederichshafen (*here's* Wilhelmshafen) respectively. Hannover does not have a suitable harbour. Bremen, Bremerhafen, Cuxhafen and Hamburg are fluvial ports and so building a main naval base there would drastically interfere with commerce that is so vital to Bremen and Hamburg. I have mentioned that Prussia might have a minor navy, if at all. Based on the German navy *here*, the only suitable place would seem to be Warnemünde, just north of Rostock.
Let me reiterate that I have nothing against Germany building a Kriegsmarine. But I see this as an expansion and gleichgeschalting of the existing SR fleet in Kiel and Friederichshafen.
Boreanesia 10:35, 24 October 2005 (PDT)
Then probably the best way for prussia and allied german states to go around this would be to build themselves a small fleet of customs/postal/coast guard ships with the hope of converting them once the shooting start. This would have been similar to nazi germany *here* which circumvented military limitation impose on it by having NSDAP-sponsored "civilian sport flying club" to form future pilots.--Marc Pasquin 16:50, 24 October 2005 (PDT)
The problem is--how do you convert coastal defense ships into U-boats and battleships? I thought the solution had already been suggested? Namely, that the Kriegsmarine is indeed part of the SR navy and when the war begins a few capital ships and most U-boats "defect" to the Reich. Specifically, the ones with all (or nearly-all) German crews. I was imagining only a couple of battleships or three. For that matter, perhaps the battleships in question were built for someone else and the Empire simply confiscated them at the outbreak of hostilities? That is what the UK did *here* at the start of WW1 (and thus an supposadely Argentine cruiser became the HMS Agincourt). No offence, but while a really massive Luftwaffe can take up a lot of slack for a small or non-existent Kriegsmarine, there are certain things the latter can do that no airship or air force can. One obvious thing that comes to mind--surface ships (and submarines) can carry a great deal more weight in persons and material. They are far less at the mercy of the weather (not impervious to it, but less affected). They can get a lot closer to a target simply because they can be properly armored in ways no airship can be. Remember, this war lasts a full decade and the Empire needs really massive resources at the very start of the conflict. Mind you, if my proposed Battle for the Channel ends up taking place in 1943 or 1944 (or even 1942!) then the Empire has time to build one or two battleships of a design they might already have. Zahir 17:13, 24 October 2005 (PDT)
I agree with the solution you have suggested, David. Boreanesia 23:49, 24 October 2005 (PDT)

Marc's comments

- Was there anything ever written before about how far the german went in France ? I seem to recall that it was much less then the map would indicate and that the move of the the capital was more a preventive measure (getting further away from the front line) then due to an actual takeover. Not blaming you Zahir.

- Instead of the 100 000s of prisonners (think of the logistical nightmare), the ceasefire could have let the allied troops have safe passage to southern france (leaving of course their weapons behind). Another option: something that fell out of favour *here* was to release prisonners with the promise they would not serve on a given front for a fixed period (they would have been shipped to russia or the pacific).

- Can we get someone ficticious instead of Goering ? Can't realy think of a proper replacement apart from "Gatling".

--Marc Pasquin 18:38, 23 October 2005 (PDT)

Well, we could also assume that either of the Richtofen brothers survived the First War. Goering himself was a very able man and distinguished pilot during WWI, having briefly commanded Richtofen's squadron after "The Red Baron"s death. The Nazi crowd plus the decadance of the Weimar years brought out his weaknesses but conditions *there* were very different. But I am open to suggestions. How about giving Manfred and Lothar another brother--Herman von Richtofen, who went on to command the Luftwaffe during GW2? Zahir 19:15, 23 October 2005 (PDT)

Sorry, I hadn't commented on this earlier. I would suggest that a 'logistical nightmare' could be played to the Allies' advantage. My guess is that the FK invented concentration camps during their wars with the Batavian Boers in Africa. Hessler would do something with captured forces in northern France, much to the public chagrin of the FK. Eventually they might be transferred to German or Eastern European territories for containment, similar to want happened *here* to 'subhuman' peoples, but without the death factories. The syphoning of military forces to corralling captured forces would be to the advantage of the remaining combattant Allies; Bell and his fellow-negotiators are undoubtedly aware of this.

I would also suggest that there is a steady flow of volunteers, both men and women, going to free France and Italy from the FK and its colonies. Military and Territorial training for war would still be a widespread elective, almost compulsory, in public education, during this period, especially for boys. I imagine the War wings would be blatant in encouraging this. It is in their interests to support their allies. - AndrewSmith 19:53, 31 October 2005 (PST)

That sounds good to me. Real good. Zahir 20:01, 31 October 2005 (PST)

split of GAlianz

Uh, to prepare an attack against Russia would take more than a day in reality. Germans must have been prepared to invade Russia before GA split. To prepare such attack may take from three weeks to a month. Jan II.

Operation Barbarossa took many, many months of intricate planning. It was a far more ambitious and complex military event that the D-Day landing. It stalled only after months of combat, and required renewed offensives the following year. Zahir 11:52, 24 October 2005 (PDT)

Well, relations between Russia and Germany had been going sour for nearly two years! I think, with tension rising in the Balkan (where else? ;) ), it is no less than likely that Germany had been secretly preparing for a possible war between the two. And I can even imagine that Russia had been playing with the thought, too, although they were probably less prepared. --IJzeren Jan 03:21, 25 October 2005 (PDT)

European Russia occupied by HRE?

Can someone draw approximatelly the frontline of the uttermost advance of Germans in GW2 in Russia? It seems to be crucially new point for Nassian history! Jan II.

As far as I remember, Nassina remained firmly in Russian hands, right? So I would guess the Germans advances about as far as Petrograd. They probably put it under siege for quite a while, but never managed to conquer it (but they díd manage to starve it to death, probably). As for the remaining territories: they undoubtedly got Lithuania and parts of Belarus and Ukraine. Perhaps even further. How about a "Battle at Vissarionovgrad"? --IJzeren Jan 03:26, 25 October 2005 (PDT)
Yes, Nassina was firmly in Russian hands as a puppet state (e.g. like Protektorat Boehmen und Maehren). I was just worried about the sentence: "Less than a year later ... most of European Russia were occupied by the German-Hungarian armies; the Russian government was forced to leave Moscow and settle itself in Jekaterinenburg, in the Ural." If most of European Russia were occupied and Moscow was left, that means that Nassina came to close contact with Germans. Your explanation seems to be satisfactorial, as far as Germans did not advance BEHIND Petrograd being sieged. There is a "Katzensprung" from Petrograd to Selograd/Settikortu. And remember, that time Nassina was little bit bigger, containing former Ladogian Rep. Also it would be quite challenging for Germans to convince Nassina to kick Russian ass in exchange for "freedom" under German supervision (said to be less tyranic). If you check the maximal Axis expansion *here*, actually Germans advanced behind Petrograd (well, closer to their friends Finns, but...), as the siege did not stop advance. See


I know that, but I think my explanation IS satisfactory indeed. With all due respect to the brave Nassians, I think the Germans had good reasons to move straight to Moscow and Petrograd instead of getting lots in the scarcely populated, and of little strategic importance, North. Hessler was not stupid, and he probably decided to strike Russia in its very heart instead of collecting useless territory. Besides, he had to fight not only the Russians, but also the Ukrainians! --IJzeren Jan 02:22, 1 November 2005 (PST)
Ay, ay, sir! My intension was rather to consider, if Nassian underground could cope with Germans, not that Germans go to "liberate" Nassland. If the front would somehow touch the Nassina, I think it will be time for small try on coup d'etat against SIS. If the Germans were enough distant, Nassian underground would probably not commit themselves with them. --Jan.II

Festung Böhmen

Analogically to planned defence of remnants of SS and Wehrmacht *here* in Austria, I think about plan called "Festung Böhmen", a plan to use Bohemian fortress system to dig Wehrmacht in and see how long it will stay. It might be the reason, why Germans were so persistent; they thought they have a place to hide. But... also analogically to *here*, Bohemian army was disarmed, but the system lived on; the underground "army" (Ti Ktrojlike - The Loyal ones) just waited for its time. *Here* it was said, that ca 80 000 soldiers were organised before Gestapo broke the organisation. As there was nothing like Gestapo *there*, the loyalists may survive well organised till spring 1949, when they uprised and kicked Germans from behind. With a material help from Allied (supplied by air), they would be able to force Germans to accept the unconditional surrender in May 1949. Comments? ;) Jan II.

Interesting. There were persistant rumors at the end of WW2 of a "German Redoubt" from which the Nazis would secretly counter-attack or plan for a Fourth Reich. But I for one find the essence of what you describe--the survival of a Bohemian "underground" or "shadow" army which forms the crux of an anti-Prussian revolt--interesting and feasible. What say anyone else? Zahir 09:42, 31 October 2005 (PST)
Yes, it sounds very good. Keep in mind that the "Armia Pazana", the underground in Veneda, was very strong, too. There might have been some cooperation. And even in Germany itself there were partizans, especially in the North.
Now that I think of Bohemian resistance: is it possible that some of them managed to escape the country and to fight Germany on the side of the Allies? When Bohemia struggle was lost, it's quite possible after all that many people crossed the mountains and moved to Veneda, so that they might end up side by side with the Venedic resistance. That could also explain an eventual Bohemian presence in Visby, which later might have helped in Bohemia become a neutral state instead of a SNOR satellite. --IJzeren Jan 11:52, 31 October 2005 (PST)

I'm going to be very lazy and ask those who already know the answer to these questions rather than looking them up...

  • When did the invasion of Bohemia occur and when was it completed?
  • When would such a rebellion most likely take place?
  • How likely is it that the Rebels would be in contact with either the Allied Powers or with SNOR-ist Russia for purposes of coordinating their battle plans? Zahir 13:48, 31 October 2005 (PST)

I am actually thinking about three resistance groups: 1) Loyalists - former Bohemian army residing in occupied BK, 2) Czech resistance (Rudaa Lekgie; (Blood)Red Legion) in contact with SNOR and 3) Ta fraja armada (The Free Army) - fighting under command of Alliance. Red Legion was in contact with White Legion of SNOR and planned to subdue BK to Russia, but were relativelly weak. Free Army consisted, as Jan I. said, of officers and soldiers who ran to Veneda first and therefrom to FK. They were in a size of brigade, lead by brig. gen. Kurcvajl. They pledged alliance to FK, fought in France, west Germany and entered BK from west, helping to liberate western Bohemia in March 1949.

To Zahir's questions:

  • Invasion of Bohemia? Eh, which one? ;) At the end of the war? I would say that since August 1948 Russians tried to penetrate BK from east, but Germans where able more or less to repeal due to use of fortresses. After nuking Lodz, the Russian pressure significantly dropped and till January 1949, when brave Veneds and Lithuanians kicked SNOR out, it in fact was non-existant; the plans of gen. Swoboda for Czechoslavia were dead; in fact they never were able to get into direct contact. Allied on west and north were slower. They reached borders of BK just at the end of April 1949, then the Loyalists uprose. I would say, that performance of FA impressed FK so, that they fought for BK neutrality in Visby. Also, less pro-SNOR states in central Europe would be better for Allied. Strong BK was buffer against SNOR as RTC was.
  • The rebellion could took place only at the end of war. BK was just too "inside" of HRE to be able to rebel openly let say before March 1949. This is when I date the Prague National Uprise.
  • The Free Army was the only direct conection between Allied and BK. Because of the coup, unlike to *here*, no Benes and his melody boys could ride the plane to London. There was no Bohemian government abroad, legal Queen was arrested and government was of German loyalists from Austria, BK and Germany. Political parties were disolved. FA could easily cooperate with Loyalists in BK (by means of transmitters as *here*), and material help could be send by airships. Jan II.

Neutral Trade

I have said before that New Francy was neutral but what about other non-european countries ? with the various mention of problems with getting resources, I'm wondering who would have gained from neutral trade.--Marc Pasquin 14:49, 3 November 2005 (PST)

Okay, I get that New Francy was neutral. But what about Louisianne? Was it at the very least hoping for France to toss the Prussians off of French soil? Zahir 20:58, 3 December 2005 (PST)
While they might have sympathised with them, a common origin might not have been enough to stir up much desire to go fight oversea in a war that would have seen like it wasn't any concern of theirs. look at the anti-conscription riots in quebec *here* during world war 2.
They could have been benevolently neutral of course, alowing trade on better terms with france then with the allianz.--Marc Pasquin 14:24, 4 December 2005 (PST)
That makes plenty of sense. Kinda like "The war is someone else's game but France is the home team so we're rooting for them without actually taking part." And it also helps explain how the war lasted so long. Add Lousianne's resources to the Allied Powers and you upset the balance. Zahir 14:39, 4 December 2005 (PST)
I was always under the impression (unsaid, mind) that the Louisiannans had signed up to duke it out, but as part of the French Foreign Legion or something. I don't know tat for sure, it was just an idea that I had relating to the whole GW series. BoArthur
As its your patch of land, its realy up to you Dan. The question you probably have to ask (flag waving propaganda notwisthanding) is what would have been in it for them. If they had signed a joint protection treaty, it would be a given but they have no contiguous land, common ennemies nor overlaping sphere of influence.
If they did have a go at it, there would probably need to be a pretty good casus belli to convince people to go oversea and fight a war.
Neutrality of course does not mean that some individuals or small groups could not have done as you said and joined the foreign legion or the army of some beligerent countries. In term of frontline but non-fighting duties, the neutral aid society is another option.--Marc Pasquin 19:29, 4 December 2005 (PST)

Possible solution for the Navy

Why not just have the HRE commission the SR to build some part of its fleet for it? --Sikulu 19 December 2005, 15:01 (GMT)

list of belligerent nations

In the list of SNORist Coallition is Nassian State. Yes, Nassland was in that time SIS-ruled pro-SNORist country occupied by Russian forces, but was not allowed to have army and thus could not fight. Nassians were considered unfaithfull, only few of them were drafted to regular Russian army. So were they part of the Coallition? Or just only effectivelly eliminated as a potential threat to Russian expansion? Jan II. 23:33, 22 March 2006 (PST)


What everyone seems to forget it: A) the Holy Roman Empire almost did have its own colony (in the north of Venezuela), which was stopped by the natives' dislike of the new colonists; B) the HRE *there* would be more like Germany *here* by this point, given the simmilar events taking place. --Sikulu 05:55, 23 March 2006 (PST)

Impossible to edit the article

It is impossible to edit this article because it has links in it added by previous contributors. Unless I would delete these links, it won't let me to save changes. Abdul-aziz 11:41, 1 June 2006 (PDT)

I don't see why it won't let you edit it... BoArthur 05:37, 2 June 2006 (PDT)

When I try to save any changes, it says:

Spam protection filter From IBWiki Jump to: navigation, search The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to an external site.

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: (((LINK WHICH I CANNOT WRITE IN AS IT WONT LET ME DO THIS EDIT ALSO THEN)))

Return to Main Page.

Retrieved from ""

The link in question was added by previous contributors, I am not trying to add any new link.

Abdul-aziz 13:03, 2 June 2006 (PDT)

I also tried to make a small edit and got the same message. Zahir 14:42, 2 June 2006 (PDT)

"The Italies"

"...the Allies (the Federated Kingdoms, France, the Italies)..." I assume this would include Italy itself? Curious to know, because Italy isn't on the list of Allied Powers (indeed, it doesn't appear in the article at all--while they may not have done much of interest, they must have been involved somehow. Perhaps Italy allowed the Allies to use Italian airspace and facilities? I don't know). Sectori 21:32, 26 March 2007 (PDT)

In writting various articles I have used the information of map available here: (General Map of Europe), based on which the Italy consists of the Republic of Lombardy, Two Sicilies, The Holy See and San Marino. I see that in various other places Lombardy is reffered to as Italy however. I am not sure if anything was decided on when this state was called Lombardy and when - Italy. Abdul-aziz 16:55, 27 March 2007 (PDT)
The Elective Kingdom of Lombardy is a member state of modern Italy (which is to say, the northern section of the Italian peninsula, as opposed to the Papal States in the middle and the KTS in the south). The Republic of Lombardy existed immediately prior to the confederation of the Italian states in 1933. Thus, I'm pretty sure that all of modern Italy would have participated. But, since the nation was still fairly young and the constitution does not prevent member states from accting individually, it might have been Lombardy alone that acted. At least, that's what I get from the article on Italy. It seems more likely to me that all of Italy was united, but since I didn't write any of the Italy material except for Elba and Piombino, I'll wait until someone who knows for sure (if such a person exists) comes along.
As a post script, I think that map may be a bit out of date, although I could be wrong. Sectori 18:10, 27 March 2007 (PDT)

End of the war

The article writes: The Second Great War officially came to an end in May 1949. Has it ever been decided on which day precisely? I need to know this, because I'm working on a list of holidays in the RTC. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 07:08, 4 August 2007 (PDT)

Not that I've ever known... BoArthur 16:58, 4 August 2007 (PDT)
Not to complicate matters but due to the number of war theaters, the "official" end of the war might vary depending on the countries. --Marc Pasquin 22:51, 4 August 2007 (PDT)
Probably so. But I suppose there must have been an official date, on which Germany capitulated. Unless anyone objects, shall we use May 8, then? —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 03:33, 5 August 2007 (PDT)
I've zero objections. Zahir 09:31, 5 August 2007 (PDT)
None that comes to my mind. BoArthur 17:45, 6 August 2007 (PDT)