Time travel with multiple worlds concept. Albert Einstein makes an appearance. Man who has lost his wife and daughter flys thru Bermuda Triangle and comes to a different world where HE is dead and his wife is going to go on a suicide mission into Nazi occupied Canada.
And Hast Thou Slain the Jabberwok
by D. T. Iverson?
Description: It's hard to say which topic I enjoy more… time travel or alt-history. Those aren't mutually exclusive. So, I'm exploring what might happen if my hero finds himself in an alternative universe where it's 1962, and the Germans are winning World War Two. Part of the story involves how he got there and what he does when he arrives. The rest is a simple love story with a profound twist. There's a bit of sting theory thrown in. And extra credit to anybody who figures out how the title ties in.
Note: I have not read this one just a search guess "Albert Einstein Canada Nazi Bermuda"
Good Hunting, limab
So, I'm exploring what might happen if my hero finds himself in an alternative universe where it's 1962, and the Germans are winning World War Two.
Are you moving the start date for WWII later? Seems implausible to me that the war would both last 20 years and that Germany would be clearly winning. For a war of that magnitude to last 20 years, the two sides would have to be locked in a near stalemate.
Are you moving the start date for WWII later? Seems implausible to me that the war would both last 20 years and that Germany would be clearly winning.
DS, why are you asking limab?!?
He just cited the story description given by the author, D. T. Iverson.
And he clearly stated:
Note: I have not read this one just a search guess "Albert Einstein Canada Nazi Bermuda"
Ask the author or better read the story yourself!
HM.
ETA: I haven't read the story either, so don't ask me!
Seems implausible to me that the war would both last 20 years and that Germany would be clearly winning.
Then I suggest you read the story by D.T. Iverson! I read it when it showed up on my page. Good one - and all your questions will be answered.
moving the start date for WWII later? Seems implausible to me that the war would both last 20 years and that Germany would be clearly winning. For a war of that magnitude to last 20 years, the two sides would have to be locked in a near stalemate.
I have read part of the story (I intend to read it all). However, it seems to me that the premise is plausible. Without the USA as the "arsenal of democracy" the UK (Britain) eventually falls to Germany. That galvanized the USA to seriously prepare for war.
Lacking the UK as a forward base (and I inferred the USA is disinclined to try to liberate Europe); both sides are hampered by the Atlantic Ocean. Global economics are significantly different from our time-line.
So a protracted low intensity war, with both sides preparing for a conventional war is plausible.
So a protracted low intensity war, with both sides preparing for a conventional war is plausible.
Yes, That's plausible. But you left out an important bit from the original description. That Germany was winning.
It's not plausible to me to have a protracted low intensity war with one side clearly winning.
It's not plausible to me to have a protracted low intensity war with one side clearly winning.
Then I suggest you read the story!
It's not plausible to me to have a protracted low intensity war with one side clearly winning.
Russia v Ukraine?
AJ
Russia v Ukraine?
Not in my opinion comparable.
Among other factors, Russia v Ukraine hasn't been an active war continuously for anywhere near 20 years.
Joke?
It's still in its second very high intensity period, intensity directly comparable with WW2, on per mile basis. Russians did their best attempt at winter offensive, and now everyone awaits Ukrainian turn.
Sure, there was 5 years long low intensity period between the two year flareups that saw balance of force change in the meantime. And sure that Russia has entered a game with no victory condition for them. And yes, the war is projected to last another decade (spare total collapse of Russians), with relative pauses and another couple of high intensity episodes. But while we may hope the next low intensity period would see things go really lopsided in Ukrainian favor, I won't say it's extremely clear yet who is winning the long game.
who is winning the long game
The weapons manufacturers.
Obviously, the T-72, when going up against anything OTHER than other Soviet/Russian equipment, is a complete piece of crap. Also, the quantity versus quality debate is raging again, because quantity is an edge in and of itself, quality - in this case, meaning survivability of the tank and crew and not trying for a new record in the turret flip Olympics - is more important. It does you no good to have the largest stockpile of tanks of any nation when they're only combat effective against unsupported infantry that don't have anti-tank weapons.
The actual victory condition for Russia is a Pyrrhic one.
And no matter what else, Ukraine loses in that it's their country that's getting trashed.
They fight for survival against genocide, so as long as they exist as a nation or national identity they win.
Plus they're not exactly loved by most of their neighbours, the longer this goes on, the more Russia looks weaker and weaker. It's only a matter of time until some of those countries band together and start probing the borders a little. Russia would be completely fucked by a multi-front war.
Overcompensating little Putin, just might have put his foot in it.
Yes, that's the story. IIRC, at the start of the war, the US was much more isolationist and did not assist the UK or USSR.
The USSR at the start of the war was on the side of the Nazis and attacked Poland and other countries to help them. FDR did help the British before Dec 7, 1941 when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and got us into WW2. We were more isolationist before then and FDR was not universally supported in his efforts to help Churchill. If Hitler hadn't declared war on the USA it might have been a USA versus Japan war.