What about the former British, Dutch, and French colonies in SEA overrun by the Japanese? They're either independent now, or are under some sort of U.S. protection.
What about the former British, Dutch, and French colonies in SEA overrun by the Japanese? They're either independent now, or are under some sort of U.S. protection.
I don't think China is mentioned all too much. I'd assume the KMT would've eventually won being Soviet Russia wasn't arount to assist Mao and the US was opening supporting them, not to mention it's in their sphere of influence now.
And I'd assume South America would've found itself with lots of facist regimes to try and appease Hitler.
I think Mao did win, as there seems to be a three way cold war. btw the USSR supported the Guomindang as much as it supported the CCP. the CCP didnt actually choose sides int he cold war until Korea
its mentioned in the book that the lead character could try the chinese embassy too escape but that with the craziness going on over there its not a good idea and that the chinese and germans were not on good terms.
Hmm, just because they're not on good terms doesn't mean that Mao won the war. The nationalists could have probably won but not be on good terms with Germany, still bitter over Germanies betrayal in 1941 where they stopped all military aid in favour of joing with Japan.
I wonder if Hong Kong's sort of a "free city" under U.S. protection. (i.e. a U.S. base after the Japanese occupation)
If the US had nukes in this timeline but the Nazis didn't, what kept the US from using them to win? Was Roosevelt still President during WWII in this timeline, or was it someone different?No, Japan got utterly destroyed by the Americans - Harris, sensibly, doesn't go for the total Axis victory but has Japan lose (it gets nuked). Germany uses this as an opportunity to V3 New York, starting off the whole stalemate.
If the US had nukes in this timeline but the Nazis didn't, what kept the US from using them to win? Was Roosevelt still President during WWII in this timeline, or was it someone different?
Oh, OK, I was confused by The Red's subsequent comment:Thats the point: Germany had. The USA drew first, at Japan, but Germany fired back.
Should we assume that many former Soviet cities are now radioactive craters, and that the continued fighting in the Urals is due to a spread-out guerilla network?The Red said:Can the Nazis actullay beat the remaining Soviet Union sans Nukes or is it just keeping it going to keep Germany in a perpetual state of conflict?References are made to both,I beleive the former as the Urals will be very easy to defend and Stalin will be getting massive American aid.
One could argue that following Hitlers death, say in the early 60's the election of a New Fuhrer might see his powers curtailed by the advent of a new generation of Nazi Party members wanting a bigger slice of the pie, similar to what happened after Stalin in the USSR. In my mind I could see the Reich last longer than the USSR, perhaps upto 2000 or maybe even until 2010.
What really interest me is, having seen the result of a post USSR Eurasia, what post Reich collapse in Europe would be like.
I think that when Hitler dies, German Nazis will go the way of the Fascists in Spain and Portugal.
You mean the US would still treat the USSR as an ally even after the US was no longer at war with Germany? Like a version of NATO that includes the US and USSR? It isn't obvious that this would happen, I'm not sure the US would want to start WWIII to protect a former communist country that was mostly defeated except for guerilla fighting...Once both sides have nukes and ICBMs, Germany ismply cant nuke the USSR, because America would retaliate likewise. Hence why they have to keep the fight conventional.