Who Could Have Won WWII?

[Cdnwolf]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

It was not only fake (of course) it was ridiculous - as I said somewhere else, to believe it you not only had to have no knowledge whatsoever of military tactics and strategy, logistics, economics and geopolitical realities you had to actively reject any semblance of such knowledge.

That didn't, and doesn't, mean that everything in it, especially if considered in isolation, is impossible, but a whole hell of a lot of it, and the whole thing overall, is ... ridiculous.

Is WW3 possible? Sure. Is it likely to go nuclear if it occurs? Yes. We can debate how possible and how likely it is to go nuclear, but wishful thinking won't change my answers.

But not a one of the TW:2000 or TW:2013 backgrounds were believable, certainly not based on what we knew at the time, or even based on what we know how Russia Taking over the Ukraine, Mass backlash across a refugee crisis (Syria), France declaring war on terrorist (sending French Aircraft carrier to region ARMED WITH NUKES, Rise of a new threat from the arab world (ISIS)The Islamic world views the U.S. as defeated in Iraq, based on troop withdrawal and comments by the U.S. President. His apologetic and conciliatory tone perpetuates this view by most of the Arab world despite the apparent peaceful transition occurring
and vigorous prosecution of the remaining extremists in Iraq. Thus the remaining terrorists seek to exploit their recent “victory” elsewhere ...

Phil

Need I go on?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

ISIS/Islamic Terrorists, probably not gonna cause it themselves, as much as they'd like you to believe it ... and I suspect that the less idiotic amongst the leadership know that ... but they could trigger it by being a source of possible conflict between the West and Russia.

Even if they did a Franz Ferdinand, the worst that's likely to happen would be a quick military crushing of them in a limited regional (and entirely conventional) conflict ... though, of course, it wouldn't stop the terrorism.

But if Russia and the West didn't agree on how to carry out such crushing, that could lead to nasty things.

If Pakistan either finally collapses into the failed state that it's been teetering on the brink of for some time, or it finally goes full-Islamist like Iran, I will become very, very nervous. Their control over their nukes has to be pretty suspect even now. Imagine the risks if things went either of those two directions I described.

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

Need I go on?

2007

* EU Military Battlegroups. Common EU military. Nope. No hope thereof.
* Centrist shift in US politics. Nope, not even close.
* Tainted food recalls in US linked to China. Nope.
* British and French elections ... what were they smoking?
* Iraq, well ... they had to get something right(ish)
* Afghan government pressures US to assist with law enforcement. Again, what were they smoking?
* Pakistan - well, again, something OK.
* Australia. Fantasy. Every. Single. Australian. PM (Labor and Liberal). Since 1941 has sucked up to the US in every way possible. The supposition here is ludicrous.
* Worldwide drought in 'rich farm countries' ... like China (ROTFL) comparing ot to the US. Hallucinogens? We've never. ever. had a worldwide drought. Anyone with a basic knowledge of history would know that, and anyone with a basic understanding of climate science would understand why.
* Solomon Islands quake puts pressure on worldwide food resources! Do these guys know what the population of the SI actually is?

Given that the book was published in 2008, they could at least have gotten more of the above at least vaguely resembling reality.

2009
* Iraqi politicians 'begin to find ways to make their government work for all Iraqis' ... again, whatever it is they were smoking would have made them more money than the book did.
* Worldwide heatwave destroys crops. Again, not the slightest understanding of science, or even where food crops are grown. As for the economics, very few of the countries likely to be affected are significant exporters and make little or no money from exporting food. Those that are and do don't rely so much on it that it would have an impact unless the ridiculously anti-scientific drought lasted for several years.
* Libya. Yeah. Right. ROTFL.
* Darfur conflict spreads. Again, not the slightest understanding of the local and geopolitical realities.
* EU Battlegroups (the nonexistent ones) in Central Africa roaming around. Logistically this is simply insane - they'd be worse off than Rommel. Their base in N'Djamena ... well, Chad had no paved roads outside of the capital, no railways anywhere, no river that is more than intermittent (and, in any case, goes nowhere relevant) and their airfields are overwhelmingly dirt strips.

Oh, and in 2010 the EU sends in more nonexistent and unsuppliable BGs into Sudan and Central Africa.

I could go on. And on. And on.

Now, granted, not a lot of Americans (Australians would probably have a clew about some of the US and EU stuff, but be no better informed on the rest and UK/EU types would probably have a better handle on the Russian/Ukranian stuff, but also be clewless of most of the rest ... we all have our national blindspots) would probably have a clew as to why many of these things are, frankly, insanely ludicrous ... but if the authors had bothered, oh, I don't know, to check Wikipedia or even the old CIA Country books on some of the places involved, they could, at least, have clewed themselves in.

It gets progressively worse and worse.

Like, oh, the Oakland Flu.
Or the Israelis giving their nuclear arsenal (they have a hell of a lot more bombs than one, probably more than their neighbours have major cities and military targets - and, frankly, even with Tel Aviv hit by Dirty Bombs, I'd back the Israelie military against their neighbours any day of the week) to Egypt for some desert in Libya.

Now, yes, the bits about Pakistan and the Middle East in general are, mostly, not ridiculously unlikely, but so much of the rest is that it makes the whole progression ... ROTFLMAO ridiculous.

YMMV.

Phil

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

It was not only fake (of course) it was ridiculous - as I said somewhere else, to believe it you not only had to have no knowledge whatsoever of military tactics and strategy, logistics, economics and geopolitical realities you had to actively reject any semblance of such knowledge.

That didn't, and doesn't, mean that everything in it, especially if considered in isolation, is impossible, but a whole hell of a lot of it, and the whole thing overall, is ... ridiculous.

Is WW3 possible? Sure. Is it likely to go nuclear if it occurs? Yes. We can debate how possible and how likely it is to go nuclear, but wishful thinking won't change my answers.

But not a one of the TW:2000 or TW:2013 backgrounds were believable, certainly not based on what we knew at the time, or even based on what we know how ... especially based on what we know now, in fact. Of course, we also know how close we came on a couple of occasions - mostly in the form of an actual nuclear attack by accident or mistake, rather than a conventional war that escalates.

How could WW3 occur - best guess, at the moment, is a mis-step by Putin somewhere ... he seems dead set on reviving the Cold War singlehanded and is not as smart as he seems to think he is. It is possible that he could push things too far ...

Another possibility, but probably a lower order one, is conflict with the PRC over the South China Sea ... again, it would likely be accidental. And it could well remain limited and regional even if conflict did occur ... but the chance of escalation and opportunistic actions, and resulting accidents, in Europe or elsewhere is, of course, always a possibility.

ISIS/Islamic Terrorists, probably not gonna cause it themselves, as much as they'd like you to believe it ... and I suspect that the less idiotic amongst the leadership know that ... but they could trigger it by being a source of possible conflict between the West and Russia.

Even if they did a Franz Ferdinand, the worst that's likely to happen would be a quick military crushing of them in a limited regional (and entirely conventional) conflict ... though, of course, it wouldn't stop the terrorism.

But if Russia and the West didn't agree on how to carry out such crushing, that could lead to nasty things.

YMMV.

Phil

Even the beloved first edition had moments of that. But I'd take your list and try to redo those if/ when the campaign ever went to those regions to a more plausible end(as much as a TEOTWAWKI premise allows). As was mentioned in the "Timelines" thread, one doesn't need a complete timeline. As infrastructure collapses,PC's wouldn't have the complete picture anyway.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

As infrastructure collapses, PC's wouldn't have the complete picture anyway.

Absolutely agree with that and I've mentioned something like it in other threads before.
No need to detail every last thing when PCs will never, EVER even hear so much as a rumour about it. A bit of uncertainty is a great tool a GM should never give up.

Anyway, getting back on topic, it would seem there's more to come with Isis issuing a list of cities they intend to attack shortly. I can't see any way that they don't have the resources in place to do it either.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Absolutely agree with that and I've mentioned something like it in other threads before.
No need to detail every last thing when PCs will never, EVER even hear so much as a rumour about it. A bit of uncertainty is a great tool a GM should never give up.

Anyway, getting back on topic, it would seem there's more to come with Isis issuing a list of cities they intend to attack shortly. I can't see any way that they don't have the resources in place to do it either.

It must have been your post that stuck in my mind.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And as I've mentioned a few times, most people playing RPGs aren't that interested in reading through a highly detailed history/timeline. If it's going to be ignored by, for example, four out of five players, it's probably not worth going to all the extra effort to develop the timeline much past the most significant events.
And that way you also avoid some of the less-believable moments quoted here.

[Olefin]

it comes down to if the timeline is necessary to understand the other information you have presented

I did a highly detailed timeline in the East African sourcebook because many people are unfamiliar with the area - so it helped flesh it out and show how the 2001 situation got to where it was instead of just jumping in at April 2001

Very different in places like Korea or Europe - there have been so many alternate WWIII books and other things written let alone the real news in those areas that you can play without much more than the war started here, some general dates as a timeline and ok now we are at the start of the game

[Olefin]

the timelines in the original game were good ones (and by that I mean the ones in the original version 1) - they may have had the US taking it on the chin too much to satisfy the reality that somehow France became the great world power of Twilight 2300 - but in general they made sense (Pakistan and India nuking themselves out of existence and the Soviets and Chinese going to war, based on what was going on in the earlly to mid 80's was pretty plausible to those of us who were adults at the time - even Iran possibly going moderate after what the mullahs were doing was reasonable)

I think that was part of what made the game background so plausible at the time and why that game had a bigger appeal to me than say Gamma World

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

And as I've mentioned a few times, most people playing RPGs aren't that interested in reading through a highly detailed history/timeline. If it's going to be ignored by, for example, four out of five players, it's probably not worth going to all the extra effort to develop the timeline much past the most significant events.
And that way you also avoid some of the less-believable moments quoted here.

Exactly.

If they'd only made some comments like 'Hotspots in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Eastern Europe grew in intensity and eventually devolved into local, then regional conflicts that sucked in even the major powers and led to a worldwide war.' they'd have been home and hosed!

They wouldn't have annoyed the few people like me who have enough of a clew to know what was so wrong with their detailed timeline and, as you say, most of the players couldn't have cared less.

To paraphrase J W Campbell, 'Grant the trigger and go ...'

As it was, they picked the worst possible way of doing things.

YMMV

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Olefin

the timelines in the original game were good ones

Well, yes, once you ignore the idiocy of Germany going to war unilaterally without the US having any warning whatsoever (or at all, really), or was that V2? Anyway, while the rest made sense, the trigger was ROTFLMAO stuff.

YMMV

Phil

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Well, yes, once you ignore the idiocy of Germany going to war unilaterally without the US having any warning whatsoever (or at all, really), or was that V2? Anyway, while the rest made sense, the trigger was ROTFLMAO stuff.

YMMV

Phil

Well Germany going to war is pretty much the central theme of T2K, after all there probably would have been no war in Europe if they hadn't.

[unkated]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Consider this. Several years (i.e. less than five) ago a whine by one of our local far lefty idiot types about the fact that she and her Palestinian companion(s) took five-eight hours to get through security at Tel Aviv Airport when leaving the country was published in (IIRC) the Sydney Morning Herald (the Aussie equivalent of The Times or The New York Times) … she complained that it was racist and anti-muslim.

The SMH sought comment from an Israeli Security expert who made this point – 100% of terrorist attacks in Israel or directed at Israeli interests are carried out by Palestinians or Muslims (or a tiny cohort of crazy deluded westerners who are known to blindly support Palestinian terrorists). Stringent security measures aimed specifically at Palestinians and known pro-Palestinian activists is, therefore, a sensible precaution … and, as a result, there have been no terrorist attacks in Israeli airports since the measures were instituted.

'But, but, but!' the whiny idiot lefty complained, 'It's racial profiling!'

'Yes, but it's effective racial profiling' was the response.

Now, being of a generally left political perspective myself (socialist, not communist … something like Eurosocialist, but not the nonexistent Tranzi nonsense spouted by some people), but also being a long time supporter of Israel and of common sense, I could only shake my head at the outright lunacy of said lefty whiner.

So, consider this – close to 100% of recent terrorist attacks have been carried out by Muslims, often of Arab or other Middle Eastern or North African origin.
While one can reasonably assume, based on the evidence, that they do not have widespread active support amongst the Muslim community, though they may have somewhat wider sympathy from same (way less than 1%, I'd guess, for the former, at least in the Western muslim diaspora) – but the fact remains that close to 100% of recent terrorists were muslims.

While I have no disagreement with what was said above, this statement I cannot accept:

• Timothy McVeigh, and his assistants, who blew up the Morruh Federal Building in Oklahoma City were nice white christian terrorists, born and raised in the United States.
  
• The Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, was a nice white christian terrorist, born and raised in the United States.
  
• Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Park bomber was a nice nice white christian terrorist, born and raised in the United States.
  
• Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving Boston Marathon bomber is Muslim, but is a naturalized US citizen, having lived in the US since he was 9. He certainly does not look particularly arab.
  
• Dylan Roof, a nice nice white christian terrorist, born and raised in the United States, killed 9 people in a Charleston, SC church this past June (2015) hoping to start a race war by his own admission.

This list does not include the nice christian white people in the US who seem to have gone off their rocker, taken guns and opened up in classrooms (college to grade school), movie theatres or elsewhere for some mental illness.

So, shall we put a watch on all those nice white christian folk, too?

So, yes, it is racist blindness (IMHO) to concentrate your security efforts on one set of potential targets while ignoring others with no better track record.


Uncle Ted

[Olefin]

Ted Kaczynski was an atheist not a Christian

Eric Rudolph is a member of a cult sect of the Mormons, not a Christian

As for McVeigh - In a 1996 interview, McVeigh professed belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs." In McVeigh's biography American Terrorist, released in 2002, he stated that he did not believe in a hell and that science is his religion. In June 2001, a day before the execution, McVeigh wrote a letter to the Buffalo News identifying himself as agnostic

so lets give it a rest shall we

[RN7]

Originally Posted by unkated

While I have no disagreement with what was said above, this statement I cannot accept:

• Timothy McVeigh, and his assistants, who blew up the Morruh Federal Building in Oklahoma City were nice white christian terrorists, born and raised in the United States.
  
• The Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, was a nice white christian terrorist, born and raised in the United States.
  
• Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Park bomber was a nice nice white christian terrorist, born and raised in the United States.
  
• Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving Boston Marathon bomber is Muslim, but is a naturalized US citizen, having lived in the US since he was 9. He certainly does not look particularly arab.
  
• Dylan Roof, a nice nice white christian terrorist, born and raised in the United States, killed 9 people in a Charleston, SC church this past June (2015) hoping to start a race war by his own admission.

This list does not include the nice christian white people in the US who seem to have gone off their rocker, taken guns and opened up in classrooms (college to grade school), movie theatres or elsewhere for some mental illness.

So, shall we put a watch on all those nice white christian folk, too?

So, yes, it is racist blindness (IMHO) to concentrate your security efforts on one set of potential targets while ignoring others with no better track record.


Uncle Ted

This is a very valid point, although as Olefin has pointed out many of these people weren't really Christian. However these individuals in America acted alone or did to a large extent, whereas the Islamic ISIS supporters (and Al Qaeda) were part of an organised multi-national extremist network with funding and support. Most of them were also indoctrinated/brainwashed into this type of rapid anti-everything not Islamic thinking by so called religious people, and they have legions of potential supporters in the Islamic world and among people of certain ethnic backgrounds in the Western world.

[unkated]

No, I cannot "let it rest."

When untruths are presented as facts, and used as a justification for mistreatment or repression, I don't let it rest.

Oh, and don't tell Moromons they are aren't christians unless you want to hear a long lecture.

Uncle Ted

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by unkated

While I have no disagreement with what was said above, this statement I cannot accept:

• Timothy McVeigh, and his assistants, who blew up the Morruh Federal Building in Oklahoma City were nice white christian terrorists, born and raised in the United States.
  
• The Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, was a nice white christian terrorist, born and raised in the United States.
  
• Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Park bomber was a nice nice white christian terrorist, born and raised in the United States.
  
• Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving Boston Marathon bomber is Muslim, but is a naturalized US citizen, having lived in the US since he was 9. He certainly does not look particularly arab.
  
• Dylan Roof, a nice nice white christian terrorist, born and raised in the United States, killed 9 people in a Charleston, SC church this past June (2015) hoping to start a race war by his own admission.

This list does not include the nice christian white people in the US who seem to have gone off their rocker, taken guns and opened up in classrooms (college to grade school), movie theatres or elsewhere for some mental illness.

So, shall we put a watch on all those nice white christian folk, too?

So, yes, it is racist blindness (IMHO) to concentrate your security efforts on one set of potential targets while ignoring others with no better track record.

Uncle Ted

Hmmm.

You did note the bit about 'recent' - and the specificity of 'terrorist attacks'

McVeigh and Kaczynski are hardly recent, even if one bends the definition beyond breaking point.

As for the loons going on shooting rampages in the US, well, they are serial or spree killers and not terrorists. Yes, even Roof.

Which leaves the Tsarnaevs, who are both muslim and terrorists ... and should, therefore, have been profiled.

YMMV

Phil

[LT. Ox]

Originally Posted by unkated

No, I cannot "let it rest."

When untruths are presented as facts, and used as a justification for mistreatment or repression, I don't let it rest.

Oh, and don't tell Moromons they are aren't christians unless you want to hear a long lecture.

Uncle Ted

As was pointed out by Olefin YOUR naming on YOUR list of several persons that acted in what were acts of terror as "nice white Christians" is somewhat in error or downright untruth.
Which?
The job of finding and deterring criminal behavior is tuff, not using available information about who is doing what makes it a lot tougher, further giving those that are being closely scrutinized a defense is adding to the smoke screen.
IMHO

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by LT. Ox

The job of finding and deterring criminal behavior is tuff, not using available information about who is doing what makes it a lot tougher, further giving those that are being closely scrutinized a defense is adding to the smoke screen.
IMHO

Exactly.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by RN7

Well Germany going to war is pretty much the central theme of T2K, after all there probably would have been no war in Europe if they hadn't.

Indeed it was. However to believe that the Germans could blithely go to war without any intelligence leaks to the US is ... downright silly.

YMMV

Phil

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

However to believe that the Germans could blithely go to war without any intelligence leaks to the US is ... downright

Stranger things have happened.
Although they might like to think it, the US isn't infallible.

[LT. Ox]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Stranger things have happened.
Although they might like to think it, the US isn't infallible.

Yes we are...pffft

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Although they might like to think it, the US isn't infallible.

Sshhhhh!!!

We don't want to let them in on the secret

Of course, the US did, at least, win two major world wars in the 20th century - Germany ... didn't ...

Phil

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Of course, the US did, at least, win two major world wars in the 20th century

No they didn't, they assisted.
You've been watching too many American war movies.

[Jason Weiser]

And now...Mali, it appears.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/20/africa...ing/index.html

[Legbreaker]

Doesn't anyone use anything besides AK-47s?
Funny how we'll soon be hearing how it's nothing to do with islam and it's all Israel's fault...

Attachment 3563

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

No they didn't, they assisted.
You've been watching too many American war movies.

They did a lot more than just assist - without the huge amount of supplies we sent the Russians they would have, at best, managed a tie on the Eastern Front - they had the bodies but we put them on wheels and those wheels are what they used for the offensives of 43-45 that destroyed the Germans

As for the Pacifc War - yes we got help from Australia and others but the war against Japan was basically an American show from 1943 on

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Indeed it was. However to believe that the Germans could blithely go to war without any intelligence leaks to the US is ... downright silly.

YMMV

Phil

Not when you look at the context of the T2K timeline. And I think that keeping intelligence leaks from the Soviets and the East German government would be more relevant as I don't think the US was against German Reunification.

[Raellus]

WWII was a team effort. Without any one of the Big Three, the Allies couldn't have won.

Originally Posted by Olefin

They did a lot more than just assist - without the huge amount of supplies we sent the Russians they would have, at best, managed a tie on the Eastern Front - they had the bodies but we put them on wheels and those wheels are what they used for the offensives of 43-45 that destroyed the Germans

The amounts of war material shipped by the U.S. to many of its allies during and even before its official entry to the war is simply staggering. If any factor can be singled out for doing the most to win the war, it's allied war production, and the U.S., hands down, produced the most.

Originally Posted by Olefin

As for the Pacifc War - yes we got help from Australia and others but the war against Japan was basically an American show from 1943 on

This is partially valid if you're just looking at offensive operations that regained territory. It ignores the huge role that Chinese, British, and ANZAC forces played in tying down Japanese troops in China, Burma, and New Guinea. If those Japanese troops had been free to deploy elsewhere, the U.S.A.'s island hopping would have taken A LOT longer to reach the Japanese home islands.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

WWII was a team effort. Without any one of the Big Three, the Allies couldn't have won.

Absolutely. Boils my blood when Americans (and others) state the US won the war. They didn't even enter it until December 1941, nearly two years after it commenced, and would have been nearly impossible without the use of Australia as a base.
It is in fact rather insulting to the rest of the world.