His Majesty's Dragons

[General Havoc]

Wait a bloody minute here! The biggest thing driving the Nazis and the Fascists was anti-communism. It was fear of communism embodied in the Soviet Union that drove the conservative factions of Italy and Germany to cut deals with the two manics. If there is no Soviet Union, and thus the communist threat remains weak at best, how can there be enough of a threat to drive the conservative forces to accept Nazism and Facism as lesser evils?

And make no mistake without the aid of Reactionary and Conservative elements the Nazis and the Fascists won't get off the ground.

It was the threat of Communism, not of the Soviet Union, that drove the conservative factions of Germany and Italy to resort to deals with Hitler and Mussolini. Communism is an idea, a philosophy, one that the defeat of the Bolsheviks in Russia did not annihilate. Consider my words above. Russia was utterly destroyed in the civil war, their aristocracy and landed classes gutted and butchered by increasingly desperate Left-wing totalitarians. That the communists eventually lost in Russia is no pallative for the Junkers and the Army brass in Germany when they consider the possibility that the same exact thing might happen to them.

The conservative factions in Italy and (especially) in Germany did not join with Hitler because they were afraid that the Soviet Union was going to invade them. The Soviets one experiment in that direction pre-WWII was utterly crushed at the Battle of Warsaw in 1920. They were afraid of DOMESTIC communism, of the German and Italian Communists and Socialists who (they thought) would try to seize control of the government and institute their own little Soviet regime. The fact that the Bolsheviks lost in Russia doesn't change that prior to losing they butchered the entire propertied class of Russia. You think the German conservatives are in any hurry to see that tried again in their backyards?

You cannot stamp communism out by simply winning a battle. Communism existed long before the USSR was established (The Spartakist movements in Germany prove that much), as did the willingness of the authorities to act decisively against the "threat" of Communism. (Consider the suppression of the Spartakists). Eliminating the Soviet Union as a Communist state does not change this at all, especially since in THIS world, it's not just humans who find themselves swept up in the theory of Communism...

"Dragons of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!"

That's a prospect to put fear in the hearts of any conservative.

[General Havoc]

Mainly I was curious because if they had access to the generally "better" dragons of the Chinas, I can't see how the Mongols would have been stopped. Now this might not have made much of a difference in Europe since the mongols stopped on their own, though they could have gotten farther faster. But in the Middle East the only reason they stopped was that they were defeated. Though with that being said I would imagine the Middle East, being another seat of civilization, would have some pretty old dragons as well.

... and I see I am going to have to introduce you to the Hashishim, the Sandstorm, and the Spotted Diasporan...

[LadyTevar]

Mainly I was curious because if they had access to the generally "better" dragons of the Chinas, I can't see how the Mongols would have been stopped. Now this might not have made much of a difference in Europe since the mongols stopped on their own, though they could have gotten farther faster. But in the Middle East the only reason they stopped was that they were defeated. Though with that being said I would imagine the Middle East, being another seat of civilization, would have some pretty old dragons as well.

... and I see I am going to have to introduce you to the Hashishim, the Sandstorm, and the Spotted Diasporan...

Don't forget the Turkish Firebreathers.

However, I see the Mongols using small, fast lightwieghts for their fighting, just as they used small fast ponies IRL. A dragon fast enough could be used in the classic Mongol feints.

IIRC, the Mongols had two strong tactics. The first was the mounted rush towards the enemy infantry, breaking off right/left to pepper the line with arrows before retreating to Mongol lines.
The second tactic was a mock rout, which the infantry would often fall for. Then the Mongols would turn and destroy the enemies who had followed them, now that they were no longer close to their supply lines.

Both of these tactics could be used dragonback.

[Avian Obscurities]

The second tactic was a mock rout, which the infantry would often fall for. Then the Mongols would turn and destroy the enemies who had followed them, now that they were no longer close to their supply lines.

Lole, Lrn2Fight on the Flag >.<

[LadyTevar]

The second tactic was a mock rout, which the infantry would often fall for. Then the Mongols would turn and destroy the enemies who had followed them, now that they were no longer close to their supply lines.

Lole, Lrn2Fight on the Flag >.<

English translation, please?

[Charon]

Unless Mongolian dragons are the smoothest riding dragons in the history of forever, I can't see their dragon units doing much of the peppering. For one you can't get the accuracy, for two you can't field enough dragons to make up for the loss in accuracy, or to fill enough of the air to get good hits in general, for three the range isn't good enough on a bow to keep you out of range of enemy dragon reprisal.

As for Communism, it could have still been a very big threat in places like Germany and Italy. The Bolsheviks lost on what many could consider to be a fluke, so while there would not be the Communist nation on their doorstep to entice Communists within their own countries, it would still be close enough timewise and with dire enough conditions that it's enough of a threat for Fascism to take hold.

[General Havoc]

The second tactic was a mock rout, which the infantry would often fall for. Then the Mongols would turn and destroy the enemies who had followed them, now that they were no longer close to their supply lines.

Lole, Lrn2Fight on the Flag >.<

English translation, please?

Inside joke...

[Avian Obscurities]

Unless Mongolian dragons are the smoothest riding dragons in the history of forever, I can't see their dragon units doing much of the peppering. For one you can't get the accuracy, for two you can't field enough dragons to make up for the loss in accuracy, or to fill enough of the air to get good hits in general, for three the range isn't good enough on a bow to keep you out of range of enemy dragon reprisal.

Haven't there been forces in history that were able to do archery with frightening accuracy from horseback? Im sure ive heard of stories of archery cavalry standing up on horseback to take shots.

[Charon]

Unless Mongolian dragons are the smoothest riding dragons in the history of forever, I can't see their dragon units doing much of the peppering. For one you can't get the accuracy, for two you can't field enough dragons to make up for the loss in accuracy, or to fill enough of the air to get good hits in general, for three the range isn't good enough on a bow to keep you out of range of enemy dragon reprisal.

Haven't there been forces in history that were able to do archery with frightening accuracy from horseback? Im sure ive heard of stories of archery cavalry standing up on horseback to take shots.

Yes, the Mongolians among them. But that doesn't change the fact that as I understand it Dragon's are even worse on accuracy than horses. Even then the most "accurate" you're going to get with a bow is still not enough to assure a hit, let alone a kill, from any range that isn't going to involve the person next to the guy you just shot sticking a spear through your chest. So in order to get enough good hits on a group you need a lot of arrows in the sky, something you can't really do with dragons because you can't field enough, unless MAYBE they're the size of a horse, but feeding carnivores on the trail is a lot harder than feeding herbivores.

On top of this arrows are only good against human targets, since even modern guns aren't up to the task of piercing Dragon hide unless they're really big, and with a reliably accurate range of less than 400 meters, you're really better off just smashing into the enemy ranks of troops with your dragon and then flying off than to stand outside their range and fire arrows at them while the enemy dragons come gunning for you.

EDIT: Was WAY off on range.

[LadyTevar]

Unless Mongolian dragons are the smoothest riding dragons in the history of forever, I can't see their dragon units doing much of the peppering. For one you can't get the accuracy, for two you can't field enough dragons to make up for the loss in accuracy, or to fill enough of the air to get good hits in general, for three the range isn't good enough on a bow to keep you out of range of enemy dragon reprisal.

Haven't there been forces in history that were able to do archery with frightening accuracy from horseback? Im sure ive heard of stories of archery cavalry standing up on horseback to take shots.

That's the Mongols, AO. Their horsebows were revolutionary at the time, being a composite of wood, leather, and bone strips soaked in glue and molded into shape. Like modern composites, this gave them a greater strength and flexibilty than the wooden bows of the Western Empire.
Another factor in their skill: Mongol men were trained from childhood in riding and archery. Practice does make perfect.

[Cynical Cat]

That wasn't what really made them good. The bows were common enough on the steppe and practice from childhood with riding and using weapons was common with nomads and warrior classes everywhere. What made them so good was the emphasis on ability and the incorporation of conquered nation troops to shore up their weaknesses (i.e. Arab and Chinese engineers and siegecraft). That a high born idiot would command nothing and a low born genius would command tens of thousands is what made them so damned deadly. Their technology and tactics weren't revolutionary and were present in other parts of the world. The Mamluks of Egypt fought in a similar manner and defeated them. The professional army, officered on merit, was their biggest and most effective advantage.

[Avian Obscurities]

Unless Mongolian dragons are the smoothest riding dragons in the history of forever, I can't see their dragon units doing much of the peppering. For one you can't get the accuracy, for two you can't field enough dragons to make up for the loss in accuracy, or to fill enough of the air to get good hits in general, for three the range isn't good enough on a bow to keep you out of range of enemy dragon reprisal.

Haven't there been forces in history that were able to do archery with frightening accuracy from horseback? Im sure ive heard of stories of archery cavalry standing up on horseback to take shots.

Yes, the Mongolians among them. But that doesn't change the fact that as I understand it Dragon's are even worse on accuracy than horses. Even then the most "accurate" you're going to get with a bow is still not enough to assure a hit, let alone a kill, from any range that isn't going to involve the person next to the guy you just shot sticking a spear through your chest. So in order to get enough good hits on a group you need a lot of arrows in the sky, something you can't really do with dragons because you can't field enough, unless MAYBE they're the size of a horse, but feeding carnivores on the trail is a lot harder than feeding herbivores.

On top of this arrows are only good against human targets, since even modern guns aren't up to the task of piercing Dragon hide unless they're really big, and with a range of maybe 150 feet, you're really better off just smashing into the enemy ranks of troops with your dragon and then flying off than to stand outside their range and fire arrows at them while the enemy dragons come gunning for you.

Ive been thinking a lot about projectile accuracy from dragonback, actually, because i want Allen to be a sharpshooter. The way ive considered it, he and Flinder practiced technique while out on hunting trips. I've figured he certainly cant lob off volleys of attacks with accuracy, and at his best on dragonback its not as good as a proper stand done on the ground.

The technique ive imagined works like this: Theres a target in sight at a decent distance. Flinder wingbeats for a few strokes to get some speed then folds in the wings, holding them in closely, and glides for a few heartbeats. Basically hes gliding across the top of a parabolic arc with the least motion interference possible and the wings held in to reduce physical obstruction and visual interference. During this BRIEF interval, Allen targets and fires. Then the wings snap open again to maneuver and regain powered flight. I got the idea from watching ravens and crows do barrel rolls in the air (true story). they basically become feathery little missiles for a few seconds.

But anyway, while i know flight fairly well I dont know guns, so im willing to leave it open to discussion.

[Charon]

Yes, the Mongolians among them. But that doesn't change the fact that as I understand it Dragon's are even worse on accuracy than horses. Even then the most "accurate" you're going to get with a bow is still not enough to assure a hit, let alone a kill, from any range that isn't going to involve the person next to the guy you just shot sticking a spear through your chest. So in order to get enough good hits on a group you need a lot of arrows in the sky, something you can't really do with dragons because you can't field enough, unless MAYBE they're the size of a horse, but feeding carnivores on the trail is a lot harder than feeding herbivores.

On top of this arrows are only good against human targets, since even modern guns aren't up to the task of piercing Dragon hide unless they're really big, and with a range of maybe 150 feet, you're really better off just smashing into the enemy ranks of troops with your dragon and then flying off than to stand outside their range and fire arrows at them while the enemy dragons come gunning for you.

Ive been thinking a lot about projectile accuracy from dragonback, actually, because i want Allen to be a sharpshooter. The way ive considered it, he and Flinder practiced technique while out on hunting trips. I've figured he certainly cant lob off volleys of attacks with accuracy, and at his best on dragonback its not as good as a proper stand done on the ground.

The technique ive imagined works like this: Theres a target in sight at a decent distance. Flinder wingbeats for a few strokes to get some speed then folds in the wings, holding them in closely, and glides for a few heartbeats. Basically hes gliding across the top of a parabolic arc with the least motion interference possible and the wings held in to reduce physical obstruction and visual interference. During this BRIEF interval, Allen targets and fires. Then the wings snap open again to maneuver and regain powered flight. I got the idea from watching ravens and crows do barrel rolls in the air (true story). they basically become feathery little missiles for a few seconds.

But anyway, while i know flight fairly well I dont know guns, so im willing to leave it open to discussion.

Guns are a whole different animal from bows. There's a reason the introduction of the gun revolutionized European warfare.

What might work better for Sharpshooting (Which is certainly possible with WWII guns, and at a decent distance) is having his wings outstretched but still gliding. Because if Flinder's wings are pulled in he's going to be falling (at least, faster than if he is gliding), so Allen would have to compensate for the altitude loss he is experiencing while he is also focusing on wind speed, distance, aiming, and firing. If Flinder is gliding, he won't be falling so that would be one less thing to focus on. At least, in my un-expert opinion.

[Cynical Cat]

Sharp shooting from a moving target is very, very hard. There's a reason that airplane guns work on "firing lots of bullets" instead of "firing one really big bullet."

[Avian Obscurities]

Yes, the Mongolians among them. But that doesn't change the fact that as I understand it Dragon's are even worse on accuracy than horses. Even then the most "accurate" you're going to get with a bow is still not enough to assure a hit, let alone a kill, from any range that isn't going to involve the person next to the guy you just shot sticking a spear through your chest. So in order to get enough good hits on a group you need a lot of arrows in the sky, something you can't really do with dragons because you can't field enough, unless MAYBE they're the size of a horse, but feeding carnivores on the trail is a lot harder than feeding herbivores.

On top of this arrows are only good against human targets, since even modern guns aren't up to the task of piercing Dragon hide unless they're really big, and with a range of maybe 150 feet, you're really better off just smashing into the enemy ranks of troops with your dragon and then flying off than to stand outside their range and fire arrows at them while the enemy dragons come gunning for you.

Ive been thinking a lot about projectile accuracy from dragonback, actually, because i want Allen to be a sharpshooter. The way ive considered it, he and Flinder practiced technique while out on hunting trips. I've figured he certainly cant lob off volleys of attacks with accuracy, and at his best on dragonback its not as good as a proper stand done on the ground.

The technique ive imagined works like this: Theres a target in sight at a decent distance. Flinder wingbeats for a few strokes to get some speed then folds in the wings, holding them in closely, and glides for a few heartbeats. Basically hes gliding across the top of a parabolic arc with the least motion interference possible and the wings held in to reduce physical obstruction and visual interference. During this BRIEF interval, Allen targets and fires. Then the wings snap open again to maneuver and regain powered flight. I got the idea from watching ravens and crows do barrel rolls in the air (true story). they basically become feathery little missiles for a few seconds.

But anyway, while i know flight fairly well I dont know guns, so im willing to leave it open to discussion.

Guns are a whole different animal from bows. There's a reason the introduction of the gun revolutionized European warfare.

What might work better for Sharpshooting (Which is certainly possible with WWII guns, and at a decent distance) is having his wings outstretched but still gliding. Because if Flinder's wings are pulled in he's going to be falling (at least, faster than if he is gliding), so Allen would have to compensate for the altitude loss he is experiencing while he is also focusing on wind speed, distance, aiming, and firing. If Flinder is gliding, he won't be falling so that would be one less thing to focus on. At least, in my un-expert opinion.

What if he was falling TOWARD his target? or at least at an angle toward it? which is what they would be doing chasing down roos and camels in the outback, on the ground. in the air, though, if you get above your target theres plenty of other shit you can do thats gonna be more destuctive/effective.

Yeah i know itd be difficult. >.< Im not saying its a primary attack, just some special attack that might be useful/dramatic in an absolute bind.

[General Havoc]

Accuracy on dragonback is a relative thing. It is generally speaking as bad as being on a horse at minimum, and often a lot worse. It of course depends on what the dragon and his target are both doing. My original incarnation of this game had players who demanded sniper rifles, which was right out, but I'm not averse to the idea that a properly-trained dragon, with a properly trained captain, performing the proper coordinated maneuver, might be able to hit SOMETHING with a single-shot rifle. Accuracy will never be as good as it is on the ground, but I'm willing to entiertain the idea as long as it's kept within reason.

[frigidmagi]

It was the threat of Communism, not of the Soviet Union, that drove the conservative factions of Germany and Italy to resort to deals with Hitler and Mussolini. Communism is an idea, a philosophy, one that the defeat of the Bolsheviks in Russia did not annihilate. Consider my words above. Russia was utterly destroyed in the civil war, their aristocracy and landed classes gutted and butchered by increasingly desperate Left-wing totalitarians. That the communists eventually lost in Russia is no pallative for the Junkers and the Army brass in Germany when they consider the possibility that the same exact thing might happen to them.

The threat of communism and violent uprising had been around since forever, look up what happened in Europe in the year 1848, where almost every crown head in Central Europe (hell the 2nd French Republic started here) was overthrown by popular revolution and the Russian Army was the one to save the Status Quo. Hell look up the Commune of Paris! Why make deals now? They've been able to control this for generations and the uprising in Russia shouldn't be a shock, the place is known for savageness and backwardness.

But the point is this is nothing new!

The conservative factions in Italy and (especially) in Germany did not join with Hitler because they were afraid that the Soviet Union was going to invade them. The Soviets one experiment in that direction pre-WWII was utterly crushed at the Battle of Warsaw in 1920. They were afraid of DOMESTIC communism, of the German and Italian Communists and Socialists who (they thought) would try to seize control of the government and institute their own little Soviet regime. The fact that the Bolsheviks lost in Russia doesn't change that prior to losing they butchered the entire propertied class of Russia. You think the German conservatives are in any hurry to see that tried again in their backyards?

Expect the Soviet Union doesn't have to invade to support the home grown Commies now does it? The Soviets had operations in Europe supporting the locals and it was the fact that Communism, which had been around for almost a century at this point, it had led to violent revolutions in and out of Europe for almost as long. Why do they feel they need the manic Fascists who are openly saying they're going to start wars now, especially after the blood bath that is WWI?

You cannot stamp communism out by simply winning a battle. Communism existed long before the USSR was established (The Spartakist movements in Germany prove that much), as did the willingness of the authorities to act decisively against the "threat" of Communism. (Consider the suppression of the Spartakists). Eliminating the Soviet Union as a Communist state does not change this at all, especially since in THIS world, it's not just humans who find themselves swept up in the theory of Communism...

Expect the Soviet Union did change everything. It proved that the Communist could win, it gave them a safe base of operations and arms. Suddenly there was a communist empire to the east and the communist rebels had actually won. This upped the threat massively.

So without the threat being upped? Why Now? Why do the conservatives feel the need to lock the liberals (and their scarier allies) out of power by aligning with a bunch of manics who are screaming they will end democracy, start wars and kill people? Why Now?

[General Havoc]

It was the threat of Communism, not of the Soviet Union, that drove the conservative factions of Germany and Italy to resort to deals with Hitler and Mussolini. Communism is an idea, a philosophy, one that the defeat of the Bolsheviks in Russia did not annihilate. Consider my words above. Russia was utterly destroyed in the civil war, their aristocracy and landed classes gutted and butchered by increasingly desperate Left-wing totalitarians. That the communists eventually lost in Russia is no pallative for the Junkers and the Army brass in Germany when they consider the possibility that the same exact thing might happen to them.

The threat of communism and violent uprising had been around since forever, look up what happened in Europe in the year 1848, where almost every crown head in Central Europe (hell the 2nd French Republic started here) was overthrown by popular revolution and the Russian Army was the one to save the Status Quo. Hell look up the Commune of Paris! Why make deals now? They've been able to control this for generations and the uprising in Russia shouldn't be a shock, the place is known for savageness and backwardness.

But the point is this is nothing new!

The conservative factions in Italy and (especially) in Germany did not join with Hitler because they were afraid that the Soviet Union was going to invade them. The Soviets one experiment in that direction pre-WWII was utterly crushed at the Battle of Warsaw in 1920. They were afraid of DOMESTIC communism, of the German and Italian Communists and Socialists who (they thought) would try to seize control of the government and institute their own little Soviet regime. The fact that the Bolsheviks lost in Russia doesn't change that prior to losing they butchered the entire propertied class of Russia. You think the German conservatives are in any hurry to see that tried again in their backyards?

Expect the Soviet Union doesn't have to invade to support the home grown Commies now does it? The Soviets had operations in Europe supporting the locals and it was the fact that Communism, which had been around for almost a century at this point, it had led to violent revolutions in and out of Europe for almost as long. Why do they feel they need the manic Fascists who are openly saying they're going to start wars now, especially after the blood bath that is WWI?

You cannot stamp communism out by simply winning a battle. Communism existed long before the USSR was established (The Spartakist movements in Germany prove that much), as did the willingness of the authorities to act decisively against the "threat" of Communism. (Consider the suppression of the Spartakists). Eliminating the Soviet Union as a Communist state does not change this at all, especially since in THIS world, it's not just humans who find themselves swept up in the theory of Communism...

Expect the Soviet Union did change everything. It proved that the Communist could win, it gave them a safe base of operations and arms. Suddenly there was a communist empire to the east and the communist rebels had actually won. This upped the threat massively.

So without the threat being upped? Why Now? Why do the conservatives feel the need to lock the liberals (and their scarier allies) out of power by aligning with a bunch of manics who are screaming they will end democracy, start wars and kill people? Why Now?

Because of the Great Depression, which DRASTICALLY swung the balance of popular support towards communism and other extreme groups, and in an unstable state like Weimar Germany or Republican Italy, it was enough to provoke potential counters. Remember that Mussolini took over in Italy before the Soviet Union had even finished winning their civil war in our time. It did not require the existence of the Soviet Union to scare the pants off of the conservatives.

Because the Soviet Union's so-called "support" for the communist movements outside of Russia was negligeable at best in our time, due to both Lenin and Stalin's policies of "Communism in Russia first". Consider the Spanish Civil War. The Communists were perceived to have a lot of support by the German establishment BY THEMSELVES. Russian support didn't help, but as the country was visibly collapsing, the conservatives were more than scared enough to turn to Hitler without the Soviet Union.

The base fact is that the conservative factions in Germany and Italy were historically scared enough of their own domestic communist movements, regardless of the Soviet Union, to align with the fascists and Nazis. In our history, the Soviet Union provided a living example of what might become of the conservative faction if the Communists ever won, and therefore any means necessary were used to forestall it. In THIS history, the Russian Civil War provides the historical example of what might become of the conservative faction if the Communists ever got close to winning, and therefore any means necessary were used to forestall it. I see absolutely no reason why the failure of the Soviet Revolution would forestall the rise of both Italian fascism and German Nazism, so long as revolutionary Communism itself continued to exist.

[frigidmagi]

Because of the Great Depression, which DRASTICALLY swung the balance of popular support towards communism and other extreme groups, and in an unstable state like Weimar Germany or Republican Italy, it was enough to provoke potential counters. Remember that Mussolini took over in Italy before the Soviet Union had even finished winning their civil war in our time. It did not require the existence of the Soviet Union to scare the pants off of the conservatives.

Expect by the time Moussolini launched the march on Rome (Oct 1922), the Soviet Union was clearly in command of the Russian heartland and just cleaning up the remains of the White Russians (the last major military operation ended in Oct 25 1922, against Vladivostok). At this point it was clear that the Soviets were to be the masters of Russia and no one was sure what they were going to do next. Especially since the Soviets had attempted an invasion of Poland in 1919! It should be pointed out that attempts by the Allies to support Poland were severely hampered by native communists who did struck, committed terrorist acts and political blocks to try and aide Soviet forces.

So in other words it seemed deeply clear that the Soviets would be wish to conduct operations in Eastern Europe at the least and that they would enjoy 5th column support. Without this happening the situation of native communists has no change! It remains exactly the same as it does in 1910 or 1920. Why make the alliance now, when extremist forces had been denied or put down before?

In our timeline the change was that the communist now had an actual army and a home. In this timeline they're still just so much gutter trash to the elite's thinking. Nasty revolutions (such as the French cycle) that killed boatloads of elites were a part of European history and weren't causes of panic until someone actually won.

Because the Soviet Union's so-called "support" for the communist movements outside of Russia was negligeable at best in our time, due to both Lenin and Stalin's policies of "Communism in Russia first". Consider the Spanish Civil War. The Communists were perceived to have a lot of support by the German establishment BY THEMSELVES. Russian support didn't help, but as the country was visibly collapsing, the conservatives were more than scared enough to turn to Hitler without the Soviet Union

Side note, that was Stalin's policy not Lenin's and it was called Socialism in one country first. Here's the problem, there is no reason in your timeline to assume they can win by the themselves, they don't become any more of a threat in fact, the war in Russia would have killed most of their leaders! It makes them less of a threat not more!

The base fact is that the conservative factions in Germany and Italy were historically scared enough of their own domestic communist movements,

No, it's not a fact. They had been putting down these movements for over a century. They had smashing them flat any time they rose up. Why do they suddenly seem like more of a threat now? Because of a rebellion in savage backward Russia?

It doesn't follow Havoc and you need to give the communist more in order to make them threatening enough for the Conservatives to run over to the Fascists after a century of beating them down.

[rhoenix]

Just to throw a quick comment here about this burgeoning debate between Frigid & Havoc - this is one of the reasons I love this place.

[General Havoc]

Look, I'll get into this later on when I have time to, but I'm sorry Frigid, I simply disagree entirely. I have no "need" to "give" the communists something when the conservative factions can only look at what happened in Russia (and probably would have continued to happen baring a fluke) and decide "Jesus Christ, let's make fucking sure that DOESN'T happen here." The BASE FACT is that the Soviet Union was not supporting the German Communist or Italian Communist movements to any real extent when Hitler and Mussolini took over. Their physical existence provided a convenient bugbear to point at, but that was all. There is utterly no doubt in my mind that Hitler and Mussolini would have come to power without them.

What happened in Russia was not a "minor rebellion", it was the greatest civil war in European History. No conservative faction, not German and not Italian, even wants to consider a repeat of that.

I see no compelling reason why Hitler would not have come to power without the USSR whatsoever. And being as I can find no compelling reason to suggest Hitler would not have done so, I am under no obligation at all to presume it.

I state once more: the existence of the Soviet Union was not what brought Hitler and Mussolini to power. The fear of German and Italian communists was (among other reasons).

[frigidmagi]

. I have no "need" to "give" the communists something when the conservative factions can only look at what happened in Russia (and probably would have continued to happen baring a fluke) and decide "Jesus Christ, let's make fucking sure that DOESN'T happen here."

Yes, you bloody do. You are ignoring that shit like that had happened before without causing such a reaction. If they don't do this when it happens in France Right Fucking Next Door, why should they panic over a failed rebellion in Russia?!?

The BASE FACT is that the Soviet Union was not supporting the German Communist or Italian Communist movements to any real extent when Hitler and Mussolini took over.

The Base Fact has you put is that the Soviet Union by it's sheer existence and past actions provided more then an enough of the threat to turn the local communists from annoyence to threat of the century to them. When Mussolini took power the Soviet Union had just been beaten off by Poland, an invasion it mounted in the middle of as you put it "Europe's bloodiest civil war" if they're crazy enough to do that, what will they do when they have power and no domestic enemies of any strength? You and I in year 2008 A.D know the answer is nothing. In 1922 A.D? That answer looks much less sure now doesn't it?

Let's look at the state of the communist movement in your world at the point Hitler would be making his moves for power. Most of it's big leaders? Dead or in a Russian jail. Most of it's activists? Same. Most of it's money? Disappeared.

In short we would be talking about a movement that just took one hell of a body blow. It's not dead, but it's weaker at this point, Much, MUCH weaker then it is in our timeline. These conservatives are the same ones who didn't panic when Paris exploded in the Paris Commune of 1871. They would have dealt with uprisings during the Polish/Soviet war in 1919 to 1921 and crushed them. In short given the condinations you have created, they are more secure now then they are in ours. There Is No Reason For Them to Ally with the Fascist.

I state once more: the existence of the Soviet Union was not what brought Hitler and Mussolini to power

To bad that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying given the destruction you have wrecked on the Eastern Euro Communist and it's effects, that the communists are not strong enough to create the threat that propels the Conservatives to make the alliances to install the Fascists into power. Without those alliances, the Fascists don't get power. They don't have the support, the guns or the money.

Screaming that Hitler and Mussolini have to be power because is ridiculous. There are no inevitabilities in history, if you make changes you must consider all the implications. And one of the implications you have failed to consider is that the communists of Europe simply aren't going to be strong enough in the outline you have provided to scare the Conservatives that much.

[LadyTevar]

Ok, Guys? Can you take this fight to PMs or IMs so it doesn't further jam up the OOC thread?

And Frigid? WTF do you care, when you're not even playing the fuckin' game.
In case you didn't realize, in this universe, Napolean sacked London and Wellington stopped him on British Soil. Admiral Nelson helped by bombarding the French Position flat, before a dragon-made Tsunami crushed the British fleet there.

And you're bitching because the Russian White Army won.

Go 'way, Frigid. Stop ruining my fun.

[General Havoc]

The following is my absolute last word on this matter:

Yes, you bloody do. You are ignoring that shit like that had happened before without causing such a reaction.

Shit like this, like the Russian Revolution, has NEVER happened before. Never. I will repeat this because you do not seem to understand it. NEVER before has anything like the Russian Revolution happened in Europe. Not in the French Revolution. Not in the Paris Commune. Not in the revolutions of 1848, not in any event in the history of Europe at all. Not since the Thirty Years' War has Europe seen devastation on the scale of what happened in Russia in that civil war. The above statements are all absolute facts.

If they don't do this when it happens in France Right Fucking Next Door, why should they panic over a failed rebellion in Russia?!?

They DID do it in France when the French Revolution broke out. Or have you never heard of the War of the First Alliance? The Battle of Valmy? The Levee en Masse? The Wars of the Directorate? The entirety of Europe invaded France during the Revolution to suppress this exact sort of shit even BEFORE they had executed their king.

Or were you talking about the Paris Commune? How you can claim that a 5-month experiment in so-called Communism that was crushed by the Prussian Army is the same thing as a five-year civil war that killed nearly ten million people over a territory the size of Western Europe in which the entire aristocracy of Russia died is entirely beyond me. I repeat my above statement. The Russian Revolution was an event without equal in the History of Europe to that date. It scared the conservative factions of Europe PLENTY more than any of the minor brushfires you've pointed out. Claiming that the landed classes of Germany would react to the Paris Commune in the same way as the Russian Revolution is like claiming that the US of today would react to a strongly worded letter from the UN in the same way that we would to a thermo-nuclear bombardment of the Eastern Seaboard. It is utterly ludicrous.

The Base Fact has you put is that the Soviet Union by it's sheer existence and past actions provided more then an enough of the threat to turn the local communists from annoyence to threat of the century to them. When Mussolini took power the Soviet Union had just been beaten off by Poland, an invasion it mounted in the middle of as you put it "Europe's bloodiest civil war" if they're crazy enough to do that, what will they do when they have power and no domestic enemies of any strength? You and I in year 2008 A.D know the answer is nothing. In 1922 A.D? That answer looks much less sure now doesn't it?

The Soviet Union definitely scared people, I'm not claiming it didn't. I'm claiming that the conservatives of Italy and Germany had AMPLE reason to be scared even without the Soviet Union. Even in 1922, it was known that the Red Army was not about to invade Italy (it was not physically capable of doing so), and yet they turned to Mussolini to fend off their domestic communists all the same. The Red Army had no money or weapons or diplomatic support to give to the Italian Communists in 1922, as they were in the middle of their damned civil war, and yet Mussolini STILL got into power on the mere threat of domestic anti-communism.

Let's look at the state of the communist movement in your world at the point Hitler would be making his moves for power. Most of it's big leaders? Dead or in a Russian jail. Most of it's activists? Same. Most of it's money? Disappeared.

You're thinking of the Communists as some kind of world-wide movement when they were much more like a series of loosely connected cells. The German Communist Party in the early 30s (the period you're talking about) drew neither leaders nor activists nor significant monies from the Russian communist party. Go back and read up on it yourself if you don't believe me. The Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (KPD) was the most powerful Communist Party outside of the USSR. They were considered sufficiently scary by the right wing authorities that the Freikorps were created just to oppose them as far back as 1919! That's before the USSR was even proclaimed! The non-existence of the USSR does not imperil that of the KPD. Flat out. Nor does it prevent them from being as big a perceived threat to the "establishment" as they were perceived as being historically.

In short we would be talking about a movement that just took one hell of a body blow. It's not dead, but it's weaker at this point, Much, MUCH weaker then it is in our timeline. These conservatives are the same ones who didn't panic when Paris exploded in the Paris Commune of 1871. They would have dealt with uprisings during the Polish/Soviet war in 1919 to 1921 and crushed them. In short given the condinations you have created, they are more secure now then they are in ours. There Is No Reason For Them to Ally with the Fascist.

As I stated before, comparing the Paris Commune to the Russian Revolution is like comparing a firecracker to an atomic bomb. The same conservatives who did not panic when Paris exploded did not do so because Paris was presently surrounded by the entire Prussian army, and was extinguished in a matter of months. The Communards of Paris did not purge the entire propertied class of their city, did not execute by firing squad and starvation an entire social class of a country the size of the entirety of Europe, and did not utterly destroy their society prior to going down in flames. The Russian Revolution did all of those things.

Let me give you a point of comparison here:

Our history:

1922: Russia is in the middle of its civil war. Italian conservatives, afraid of communist threats in their country, turn to Mussolini to take over as leader of the fascists.

My history:

1922: Russia is in the middle of its civil war. Italian conservatives, afraid of communist threats in their country, turn to Mussolini to take over as leader of the fascists.

I am at a loss to understand how you can claim that the first of those posits is true, while the second one is false. Remember, this is 1922! In 1922, the civil war is still raging in my new timeline! As it was in the real one! So how exactly is it that the conservatives THIS time would NEVER EVER align with the fascists when that's EXACTLY what they did in our timeline?

To bad that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying given the destruction you have wrecked on the Eastern Euro Communist and it's effects, that the communists are not strong enough to create the threat that propels the Conservatives to make the alliances to install the Fascists into power. Without those alliances, the Fascists don't get power. They don't have the support, the guns or the money.

That is completely untrue. I have explained six times already that the lack of a Soviet Union does NOTHING to mitigate the threat that the conservative factions feel. Do you imagine that all the German Communists simply went away because the Bolsheviks failed to win the war? In OUR history, the Bolsheviks had nothing whatsoever to do with their establishment in the first place, nor did they provide them with support, money, or other things that they would need to scare the pants off of the conservatives. They did that all THEMSELVES. That's in OUR history. Why in the hell should that be any different in THIS history?

Screaming that Hitler and Mussolini have to be power because is ridiculous. There are no inevitabilities in history, if you make changes you must consider all the implications. And one of the implications you have failed to consider is that the communists of Europe simply aren't going to be strong enough in the outline you have provided to scare the Conservatives that much.

The emphesis above is mine. I will repeat the salient point:

THERE ARE NO INEVITABILITIES IN HISTORY.

This is a game of alternate history, where we explore the possibilities of changes in the timeline. What might have been? What could the possibilities have been? What might the consequences have been? Given the above, Frigid, let me ask you this:

If there are no inevitabilities in history, how exactly is it that you are claiming that inevitably, the lack of a Soviet Union would have absolutely resulted in no Hitler and no Mussolini?

This is alternate history. I apply changes to this timeline, and I work out the consequences. I believe that the elimination of the USSR would not have stopped Mussolini or Hitler from coming to power. I am, in fact, certain of that, but as there are no inevitabilities in History, I will simply say that I believe it to be the most likely outcome. I have just spent PAGES of text arguing to you that the Communists of Germany and Italy would be no weaker in this world than they were in our world. You can agree with that position, or you can disagree with it.

What you cannot do is turn around and claim I just didn't consider it. If I didn't even consider it, precisely what was all that ink I just spilled above?

I will be accused of being wrong, but not of not giving the matter thought. I think the pages of text I have provided in this matter proves rather conclusively that I have given a GREAT DEAL of thought to the subject. You think I'm wrong? GIVE ME EVIDENCE. I will not change my mind simply because you are shouting the same insistence over and over. You think the communists should have been crippled by the lack of a Soviet Union to the point that the conservatives would never have aligned with Hitler? EXPLAIN YOUR REASONS FOR BELIEVING THIS. The evidence, the data, the figures, the connections. Don't turn around and claim that the burden of proof is on me here. I'm the one running the goddamn game, and I am not changing the premise of said game unless you can convince me it is wrong. You do not convince me of SHIT by screaming "I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT" over and over again. I have spent a great deal of time explaining my position. If you cannot explain yours in terms beyond "because I said so", then your position is not worth further discussion.

Remember, this is alternate history. I don't need certainty here. All I need is there to be a REASONABLE POSSIBILITY that the communists in Germany would have continued to pose a sufficient threat to the German conservatives for them to back Hitler. I believe that possibility is more than reasonable, and am exploring the results. You are claiming that this is bullshit, and therefore that it is ABSOLUTELY BEYOND THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY for the conservatives to have backed Hitler.

Good luck with that one.

You want to debate me, do so via PMs or IMs, as I last requested you do. Otherwise, quit trolling my thread. I've got posts to write.

[frigidmagi]

As I stated before Havoc, I don't take thread business into IM. However, since you feel that way this will be my last post on the subject. No I won't discuss this in PM or over AIM, debates (or screaming arguments if you prefer) should either be entirely in public or in private, that's a personal preference of mine and nothing more. Feel free to enjoy the last word in the debate since I did run in and grab the first word from you after all.

Shit like this, like the Russian Revolution, has NEVER happened before. Never. I will repeat this because you do not seem to understand it. NEVER before has anything like the Russian Revolution happened in Europe. Not in the French Revolution. Not in the Paris Commune. Not in the revolutions of 1848, not in any event in the history of Europe at all. Not since the Thirty Years' War has Europe seen devastation on the scale of what happened in Russia in that civil war. The above statements are all absolute facts.

Was it massive civil war? Yes. Was the scale of it bigger then anything before? Yes. Was it something that had never happened before? No. While the causlities were higher and it lasted longer, the people we're talking about, the conversative elites of Germany and Italy Aren't Going To Care. You're ignoring the fact that Russia at this point is widely seen as the ass end of Europe. A savage barbarian wasteland that had managed to lose a war to an Asian nation (Japan), at this point the only European Nation in Modern Times (from their view) to lose a war to a non-Europeanish power.

Stuff like this has happened before. Uprisings and rebellions were a hallmark of European history (well okay world history) at this point. Did you even bother to look up the 1848 rebellions which spanned from France to Poland?

Russia and the events happening there Doesn't Matter That Much To Them! It doesn't matter that more people have died then ever before, it happened in Russia and they don't regard Russia has being that important. At least they didn't until a communist empire rose from the ashes. Hell without Stalin's 5 year plan the Soviets would have been wrecked by the Nazis. This is very much on display by the fact that the Allies don't really put that much effort into assisting the Whites, not compared to what they could have done. You are overestimating the effect that a failed revolt in far off Russia, which again is considered a backward savage place that is barely European, is going to have on these people.

They DID do it in France when the French Revolution broke out. Or have you never heard of the War of the First Alliance? The Battle of Valmy? The Levee en Masse? The Wars of the Directorate? The entirety of Europe invaded France during the Revolution to suppress this exact sort of shit even BEFORE they had executed their king.

It wasn't panic that caused those invasions. It was a thought out response to the destruction of the "legitimate" French government by illegal rebellion. Military action is not sign of a panic. Especially mulit-lateral military action over a long term of time by a coordinated alliance.

However this does shore up one of my points. The response to rebellion in France is continent wide military action. The Russian Civil War got hazard and lackluster responses from the outside world at best.

You're thinking of the Communists as some kind of world-wide movement when they were much more like a series of loosely connected cells. The German Communist Party in the early 30s (the period you're talking about) drew neither leaders nor activists nor significant monies from the Russian communist party. Go back and read up on it yourself if you don't believe me. The Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (KPD) was the most powerful Communist Party outside of the USSR. They were considered sufficiently scary by the right wing authorities that the Freikorps were created just to oppose them as far back as 1919! That's before the USSR was even proclaimed! The non-existence of the USSR does not imperil that of the KPD. Flat out. Nor does it prevent them from being as big a perceived threat to the "establishment" as they were perceived as being historically.

Expect it's leaders were followers of Lenin, you should go back and reread things, it's all much more closely connected then you think. Hell there were Americans working with Lenin both before, during and after the Russian Civil War. By killing or scattering or imprisoning (no I won't ask you for a name by name role call, that's hundreds of people we're talking about here and we both have other things to do).

Since part of the Soviets goal in 1919 when they INVADED POLAND IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR CIVIL WAR was to break through to Berlin and aide socialist there, I think their fall does actually influence how big of a threat they are seen to be. After all Germany was the fucking birthplace of communism! That means the authorities have been kicking in commie teeth for almost 80 years at this point! The Conservatives would have grown up seeing the communists has troublesome rabble and punching bags. The fact that they couldn't even beat the incompetent Russian government of all people only shows how hopeless it is for them. Why do they need some manic ex-Cpl in a dark shirt who is promising to end everything they are working to preserve?

Let me give you a point of comparison here:

Our history:

1922: Russia is in the middle of its civil war. Italian conservatives, afraid of communist threats in their country, turn to Mussolini to take over as leader of the fascists.

My history:

1922: Russia is in the middle of its civil war. Italian conservatives, afraid of communist threats in their country, turn to Mussolini to take over as leader of the fascists.

I am at a loss to understand how you can claim that the first of those posits is true, while the second one is false. Remember, this is 1922! In 1922, the civil war is still raging in my new timeline! As it was in the real one! So how exactly is it that the conservatives THIS time would NEVER EVER align with the fascists when that's EXACTLY what they did in our timeline?

While I can't speak with authority on your history, I can tell you that frankly you're overstating the case on ours. It actually goes

Our 1920: White Armies are in a state of utterly collapse. Admiral Kolchak's army in Siberia had disintegrated, the White Armies of the east had been pushed back and retreated. The Cossacks in the Crimea and southern areas of the Urkraine had been ground down by battle with Nestor's Black Army. The western most White Army had flat given up the game after losing the seige of Petrograd and being shoved back into Estonia. At this point the Soviet Army is killing off it's leftist allies as the Whites have NO CHANCE OF VICTORY. In fact there are more whites fleeing the nation in British boats or running into China there are left in Russia. Cossacks, Monarchists, Russian Army Officers, and other exiles flood into Europe bringing with them tales of woe and hellfire. Many of these Cossacks would join with the invading armies of Nazi Germany in WWII to kill communists. Most of those who survive are handed over to the USSR by the allies as guilty of treason.

The invasion of Poland turns bad.

Our 1921: The Whites gone, the Soviets attack Nestor's Black Armies and the other regional black armies and rivals. Essentially from here to 1923, it's all just mopping up and seeing how much of the old Russian Empire they can claim.

Our 1922: 2 Years after the collapse of White Russia and the rise of the Soviets (although not yet the Soviet Union per-say) Mussolini is embraced by the Conservatives who prefer the risk that El Duce will do exactly what he says he will to linking up with the Liberals.

Not quite what you thought yes?

In yours I note the war is more then firmly decided for the Whites by 1920. So yes, the mood as it were is going to be decidedly different.

The emphesis above is mine. I will repeat the salient point:

THERE ARE NO INEVITABILITIES IN HISTORY.

And yet you seen determine that Hitler and Mossolini's rise will take place no matter what. Ironic.

This is a game of alternate history, where we explore the possibilities of changes in the timeline. What might have been? What could the possibilities have been? What might the consequences have been?

It would be nice to see some exploration of this. The great names of communism (Lenin was considered a big dog wayyyy before the war) are dead and defeated. Communism has been slaughtered in it's biggest attempt yet. Does it change anything? Nope. Not a thing. Everything remains just the same. Some exploration you got there. You've changed the Russian event and then... done no exploration of what other changes this makes to history.

If there are no inevitabilities in history, how exactly is it that you are claiming that inevitably, the lack of a Soviet Union would have absolutely resulted in no Hitler and no Mussolini?

I have done no such thing. I have only said you have to beef up the communist threat to have them come into power. You don't need the Soviet Union for that, but you do need something to make the communist stronger, otherwise I'm suppose to believe the Conservatives are jumping over what exactly? Come on! A rebellion in Yugoslavia that El Duce puts down with black shirt volunteers! A series of explosions in the Balkans fueled by Red Army exiles trying to set up their own communist kingdoms. Hitler's SA saving Berlin from a murderous communist riot. A communist Sweden even! Something! All I got is "The Communist failed in Russia because of loyal dragons, therefore the conservatives link up with the Fascists in Germany and Italy out of fear of the communists" Which. Does. Not. Make. Sense. People don't leap in fear of failed revolts.

I happen to know you can do much better then that.