The Peace of Amiens
Page 37
[136] The book Heil Hunger! can be found quite easily through second hand book dealers.
[137] This was very much the OTL situation also. There is no direct evidence that the Nazi leader had advanced syphilis, but it is certainly true that there is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence that strongly suggests that he did. Hitler had a bizarre fixation with syphilis, which he considered a “Jewish disease”. Firstly there is a 14-page diatribe in Mein Kampf on the subject, there is also his fascination with Ulrich von Hutten, the 16th Century German scholar, poet and reformer who wrote one of the first patient narratives of his own struggle with the disease. But Hitler also had many of the symptoms of the advanced stages such as an irregular heartbeat, tremors, chest pain, a shuffling walk, mania, paranoid rages and other forms of mental disturbance. He is known to have taken iodide salts – a common treatment for late-stage, or tertiary syphilis and even his choice of doctor might have been because of Morell’s claim (made in the 1930s) to be a specialist in venereology.
[138] The dates and course of events regarding penicillin’s introduction are as OTL.
[139] In OTL they had 60 million barrels in 1941 – see Appendices.
[140] This was true OTL also, by late 1944/early 1945.
[141] In OTL, British shells at Jutland did not work properly. The results of shell hits given here are the product of analysis of three resources. N. J. M. Campbell’s Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting and Arthur Marder’s From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow Volume III to establish where and at what angle British shells landed on German ships; As well as Stephen Lorenz, Robert McCoy and Nathan Okun’s NAaB (Naval Armour and Ballistics) computer program which was used to calculate the probable results of hits obtained on the German ships if British shells had worked properly. In OTL Moltke was hit by a 15 inch shell on the 8 inch part of her belt armour at 18,000 yards. The angle of obliquity was roughly 35°. The shell burst on the belt. If the shell had been working properly it would have achieved complete penetration of the belt with sufficient remaining energy to pierce both the 2 inch part of the sloped deck armour and the 2 inch torpedo bulkhead. The naval armour and ballistics program suggests complete penetration all the way to the magazines, but it should be noted that due to the German habit of storing shells with their nose caps out ward (i.e. towards the exterior of the ship) then even partial penetration by splinters had the potential to cause a magazine explosion.
[142] In OTL the shell burst in penetrating.
[143] In OTL the shell burst in the water outside the ship.
[144] The approach of the British destroyers and the wind direction are both as OTL.
[145] In OTL this was a hit on the Lutzow. (As Derfflinger and Lutzow were sister ships it seems reasonable to assume that if they were to change places, shells aimed at either one would land in the same place.) The shell struck the thin lower edge of the armour belt beneath the waterline abeam of the forward main magazines and exploded without penetrating causing the ship to be violently shaken. The naval armour and ballistics program suggests a good probability of partial penetration of the magazines if the shell had worked properly. Again deficiencies in German shell storage could easily have doomed the ship.
[146] The described manoeuvre at the time of the sinking of the Queen Mary is historic, the near-collision incident is not, though the potential for difficulty certainly existed
[147] In OTL a 13.5 inch shell from Iron Duke, fired at a range of 12,000 yards and striking at approximately 18° from the normal, struck the lower edge of the armour belt 5 1/2 feet beneath the waterline between the bottom of the armour belt (which was only seven inches thick at this point) and the shelf that supported it. The hit was in line with ‘B’ barbette and burst on the wing longitudinal bulkhead after travelling only 6 1/2 feet inside the ship. It blew holes in several bulkheads and destroyed the ship's number 14 magazine igniting about 15 charges and arming the fuse on one of the 150 mm shells of her secondary armament. Some shell and torpedo bulkhead fragments even penetrated her main armament magazines. The crew of the Konig were incredibly lucky. In TTL a properly working shell penetrates much further into the ship causing multiple explosions and her loss.
[148] In OTL the shell broke up on 6 inch armour and failed to explode.
[149] These hits were divided between the four surviving German battle cruisers in OTL
[150] In OTL these were hits on the Seydlitz. I have calculated where the hits would land, assuming the stem of the ship was the aiming point.
[151] The non OTL late fourth and fifth phase hits (19:21 – 20:30) on Westfalen, Kronprinz and Grosser Karfurst are derived from the OTL hits on Lutzow, Von der Tann, Derfflinger, Konig and Seydlitz which in TTL are sunk before the shells aimed at them OTL are fired. The three battleships are the most obvious targets for the British at this point. Grosser Karfurst will be the Seydlitz of this timeline, staggering home despite enormous damage.
[152] In historic reality the ratios was 5/5/3/1.67/1.67.
[153] Exactly as in OTL.
[154] The tonnage figures here include the 3000 ton allowance for modernisation of capital ships. This was permitted in OTL and is also in TTL.
[155] All other types of warship and all other treaty clauses are as set out in the real Washington Treaty.
[156] This is somewhat ahistoric in that Keynes did not come to this view until the late 1940’s OTL and possibly did so as a result of working with Friedrich von Hayek. Mosley’s grasp of economics was weak. His policies were an unworkable blend of free market capitalism and state intervention of the type attempted in the Blair/Brown era and would probably have led to equally poor results. Keynes was the most respected economist in Britain and while he has been presented as an enemy of free market capitalism this view is wrong. He held that both had a place in government policy but because his political views can be seen as being to the left of Hayek’s he is sometimes incorrectly presented as holding an opposite view to Hayek when in fact the two economist’s work is in broad agreement. Keynes did not disagree with many of Hayek’s ideas in the book The Road to Serfdom, a book he had indirectly helped Hayek to write. Both men were liberals with a distrust of authoritarian regimes and Keynes agreed with Hayek that Fascism was just as dangerous as Communism. As an article in The Economist by ‘C.R.’ published on Mar 14th 2014 puts it: “Keynes rejected the populist interpretation of Hayek’s argument – that any increase in state planning is the first step on the way to tyranny — but agreed with the overall view that the bounds of state intervention needed to be clearly defined for liberal democracy to remain safe (and more explicitly than even Hayek himself did in the book). Receiving an early copy of The Road to Serfdom from Hayek personally, Keynes wrote back to him, praising the book. But Keynes thought Hayek should have been more explicit in what sort of red lines would be necessary for increased state intervention not to imperil liberty.” The rest of the article can be read at http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/03/keynes–and–hayek
[157] All this is Montagu Norman OTL, but in OTL the National Government’s aim was to compel industry to help itself while pursuing a balanced budget, limited government spending and a strong pound.
[158] By 1939 OTL, finance and industry had intermingled to a high degree – but it is questionable whether the outcome can be described as ‘finance capitalism’, in Rudolf Hilferding’s sense of the term. The large firms which were the products of mergers that had been financed by the London Stock Exchange still did not make use of it for new capital, which was usually raised internally, while small firms found London too expensive a place to raise finance. Nor did this closer engagement of the banks with industry, lead to fundamental changes in the relationship between the two. Montagu Norman’s hope that the banks would use their influence to compel industry into efficiency failed to materialise. The clearing banks did not evolve into industrial banks and they continued to be dependent for their inc
ome on investment outlets controlled by the City of London and the money market. Consequently, they remained uncomfortably placed between manufacturing industry and the financial sector and their standing and authority remained restricted so that when profits rose after 1933, their lending to industry actually fell substantially. Even successful industrial mergers often turned out to be no more than an uneasy union of disparate elements which opposed change in managerial organization and method. This disengagement from industry can be explained both as a conscious decision by the banks to pursue their primary goal of maintaining liquidity, or as a negation of enduring association with bank capital by industry. In either case, the result was that in OTL the two halves of capitalism were not committed to each other. Merchant banks and Stock Exchange investors were also wary of industry. The raising of new industrial finance on the Stock Exchange was also restricted in this time period by the growth of the national debt.
[159] See Annex 9 and Appendices.
[160] 16th September was the date of the full moon OTL too.
[161] In OTL and TTL the Iraqi revolt was supported by the Germans. In TTL the Germans have bigger fish to fry and support will be limited to diplomatic and political support. There will be no Luftwaffe expeditionary force for instance.
[162] Quoted passim in ‘The Oil War’ by Anton Mohr, 1926.
[163] This is essentially what happened in OTL but the policy is writ larger and the Borders of Israel are different. Many Jews were evicted from Arab states and the governments of those states that were not British controlled, asset-stripped them as they left. They made large profits which their leaders pocketed. So from their perspective, the population transfer means that they make money and empty their countries of Jews at no cost except to the Arab populations displaced to the east of the Jordan whom they don’t care about anyway. Unlike OTL, this does not occur at the same time as the British trying to satisfy all parties in the region. The Arab Moslems are the definite losers because of the Arab revolts in Palestine and Iraq and their support for Germany.
[164] In OTL Pethick-Lawrence did not resign the Labour whip. He was however, the chief negotiator of the British Government’s 1946 Cabinet Mission to India.
[165] In OTL these words were spoken about Pethick-Lawrence by the Viceroy of India, Archibald Wavell.
[166] This was true in OTL also.
[167] This was true in OTL also.
[168] In OTL Pakistan became independent in 1947 by which time Jinnah’s advancing tuberculosis made him take the ceremonial position of Governor General.
[169] Not a genuine quote.
[170] The figures in this section are given in billions of 1990 Geary-Khamis international dollars. The information is largely derived or extrapolated from Mark Harrison’s The Economics of WW2 Cambridge University Press 1998 and Angus Maddison’s Monitoring the World Economy 1820 to 1992 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 1994 as well as the updates and corrections to that work at The University of Groningen Website.
[171] Germany within 1938 borders, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland 4/5ths of Switzerland. For Germany and Austria the OTL 1942 figure has been used then an annual growth figure of 2% has been used. For Czechoslovakia and Poland the average figure for GDP shrinkage in the 5 major Western European countries occupied by Germany in 1940 – 44 OTL for the period 1942 – 44 TTL has been used. The German economy was not well managed by the Nazis, the best analogies are the Soviet Union in the 1930s or East Germany 1945–90 OTL. For Switzerland the 1943 figure has been used, then the average figure for GDP shrinkage in the 5 major Western European countries occupied by Germany in 1940 – 44 OTL for the period 1944 TTL.
[172] France, Holland and Belgium. For France, Holland and Belgium the actual OTL figures for 1943 have been taken as a base line and then the average OTL shrinkage 1940–43 for TTL 1944 used.
[173] The colonies have been either taken or deduced from Maddison. Territories not occupied by the Axis have been deduced using a backward extrapolation from OTL 1950 – 55 figures. Territories occupied by the Axis have used a forward extrapolation from the 5 years before occupation where available.
[174] The Baltic States, Ostland, Muscovy, Caucasus, Norway and Denmark. For Norway and Denmark the actual OTL figures for 1943 have been taken as a base line and then a figure of 2% growth for the TTL period 1943–44 used. For the Baltics and the former Soviet territories I have assumed 50% GDP shrinkage.
[175] 1936–40 annual growth rate (5.4%) is used for 1941 – 44 taking into account TTL factors.
[176] Manchukuo, Korea, Pacific territories, FE Russia, former French Indochina and Chinese conquered territory 1933–38 growth rate taking into account TTL factors.
[177] Italy 1942 + 1/5th of Switzerland plus 2% growth per annum.
[178] Albania, Algeria, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Greece, Libya and Tunisia.
[179] OTL figures have been used.
[180] For Bulgaria and Hungary the actual OTL figures for 1943 have been taken as a base line and then a figure of 2% growth for TTL 1944 used.
[181] OTL Romania + Moldova, the actual OTL figures for 1943 have been taken as a base line and then a figure of 2% growth for TTL 1944 used.
[182] The actual OTL figures for 1939 have been taken as a base line and then a figure of 2% growth for TTL used.
[183] American growth was strong in OTL for most of the 20s and 30s but in TTL some of the factors that drove it are not present. Significantly the massive injection of British money into the American economy that took place OTL 1937-41 does not take place. In the OTL period 1938-41 Britain expended its entire gold and dollar reserves, a sum equal to £700,000,000 or about $3,500,000,000. To give an idea of what that means, US GDP for 1938-39 was $5,165,000,000. Most of the money was spent in the US. $2,000,000,000 was spent on the purchase of tanks and aircraft and $171,000,000 was put up in capital for munitions factories. The British government met two thirds of the cost of building a factory for Packard in which they could manufacture Rolls-Royce Merlin aircraft engines. This cost $25,000,000 and the royalties on the engines were waived! $8,000,000 was spent in building the M3 Lee/Grant tank factory, $17,000,000 went on new shipyards and $87,000,000 on ships. On the other hand the French spent roughly $600,000,000 before June 1940 so that money will flow into the US economy as it did OTL. Also significant is that in TTL the US economy does not secure the £5.3 billion worth of high-yield foreign investment assets sold to American interests after 1941 for about 20% of their book value. For the figure arrived at here I have started in 1935, used a growth rate of 4% until 1940 (slightly below the OTL average for 1933–36), then –2% for 1941 due to TTL recession then 3% pa 1942 – 44
[184] The OTL 1938 figure is used plus a growth rate of 2% per annum.
[185] UK GDP is started from an assumed 1938 baseline figure of 352.1 (up 23.9% from OTL) because of the decision not to return to gold in 1925. Growth has been steady at just over 2% per annum on average after the Treaty of Leamouth. For the 4 ‘White’ Dominions the 1946–50 growth rate has been used for 1942 – 44. For Britain the ‘White’ Dominion average has been used. For the colonies the OTL 1950 figures have been used with a backwards extrapolation.
[186] Including Pakistan
[187] Estimated.
[188] 1948 figures have been used minus an estimate for Kashmir.
[189] Estimated.
Table of Contents
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
&n
bsp; [25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]