Part 5 is now up!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SiN-9WTVobxXvxdYVi-480bEiRNCtaTBbc5ahb6kawA/edit?usp=sharing
Major edit to Segment 55.3
Hi all, After a lot of thought I've decided to make a major change to Segment 55.3 I have removed the reference to the Germans using biological weapons against the British. Instead, their retaliatory attack is limited to the VX chemical attack. I decided that it just doesn't make sense for the Germans to escalate to bio at this point, especially given the unknowns involved.
Comments
More so with large amounts of artillery, bunkers and minefields + the ability to fill lakes with flammables if armored vehicles with amphibious capabilities were used for example. After the Eurasian War, a northern line of supply (even if that means evacuating local populations) would have been the way to go.
Finnish recruits would yet lack the years of extensive training that the German counterparts would have.
A major objective would be targeting shipping lines north of Scandinavia from the United States to the Soviet-Union, which the Luftwaffe ITTL would be much better able to do with guided missiles and high octane fuel.
Wouldn't they have ballistic or aircraft-launched cruise missiles powerful enough to launch those warheads over a few hundred kilometres by now? Or are the electronic guidance/control systems not quiet there yet?
That being, Imperial Japan (if it survives the war) is in a critical situation and the Soviet-Union occupies former Manchukuo, Mengjiang and some of north-eastern China. Historically, there were negotiations attempts by Imperial Japan authorities toward the 3rd Reich and Imperial Japan in circa September 1941 to end the war, a likely major motivation being able to import oil from the Soviet-Union. Information on this proved difficult to obtain, which might seem strange
The Chinese "communists" might also be unhappy about US support for nationalist China or the nationalists might be disregarded outside of containing the Japanese. This would be noticed by European axis diplomacy.
What of the political situation in the United States? It was the United State gov that declared war on the European axis ITTL. It is likely that anti-war opposition would rise over the years as it becomes clear that the US position is more secure (but also more costly and mobilizing far greater amount of men), heavy-handed attempts to suppress it only worsen the situation.
Not only would many dislike the idea of fighting a European axis with ever deadlier defenses, they would especially reject the idea that they cannot criticize such commitment and both parties aligns to cut out anti-war voices.
An invasion of Brazil was historically considered by the United States gov in 1942 because it was seen as an axis-leaning gov, partly because of Operation Torch and agreements with the Brazilian gov, this was abandoned. Operation Rubber.
ITTL, there would have been much more trade going on between Brazil and the European axis prior to the world war, the Brazilian gov will also know they can get nuclear technology and anti-ship missile technology from Germany and Italy but not from the United States and the United Kingdom, the former being the greatest danger to Brazil. Thus, there might be a major point of contention in the future.
Still going with this?