Draka vs TBO America

[MKSheppard]

There's also the money issue to consider with bombers versus missiles, the US was capable of doing both easily, but the US was an anomaly, because at the end of World War II, the United States was Top Dog. Our homeland was untouched; while everyone else's was pretty much devastated as a result of WWII:

Great Britain: She took some hard hits in the Blitz of '40, but what really crippled her was that she had essentially spent all of her economy and mortaged it to fight WWII. There was simply no money for anything militarily: it took them until the mid to late 1950s before they actually got a reasonable deterrent force in the V-Bombers (teh Vulcan was probably a bit more advanced performance wise than the B-52C/Ds). And then they found that they didn't have any money at all in 1957, so a choice had to be made; Manned Aircraft or Missiles, so the British picked missiles, which turned out to not save that much money at all:

The Avro 730's development costs were estimated to be in the area of £15 million, which is roughly equal to $42.15 million in 1954

The British deployed about 60 x Thor ICBMs for the RAF from 1960-1964, and I assume that the British paid at least some of the flyaway cost of the Thor in '58: $0.75 million, which at a 60 missile order comes out to $45 million. The US wasn't handing away these missiles for free, I'd assume...

And when the British realized their mistakes, their aerospace industry was no longer really there or capable of building such aircraft anymore.

France: She was devastated by WWII, with much of the country being fought over first in 1940, then in 1944, plus the pre-D Day invasion bombardment wrecked a significant portion of the French transport infrastructure, which had to be rebuilt. That's expensive.

This shows in how slow the French aviation industry was: it took them until 1958 to get the Vatour into service, which was at best a light tactical bomber, while the US was producing the B-52, and the British the Vulcan; and it took the French until 1964 to get the Mirage IV, which was basically about B-58 level performance, four years after the Hustler had come around.

Soviet Union: Devastation doesn't even BEGIN to cover the USSR's position on 8 May 1945. I've heard that it took until the 1960s for the Soviet economy to generally recover to it's 22 June 1941 level. The Soviets really could not put a lot of money into their military and development projects because they had to rebuild the place; because Soviet peasants and citizens aren't stupid. There must be some movement forward, they have to see an improvement in their lives between the war years and now, to remain calm. I'm sure that a possible rebellion was something that Stalin worried about, since the Great Patriotic War had left a lot of weapons lying around and lots of people who now knew how to use them.

By the time Krushkhev had come around in '53-'54, the Soviet Union really was in no position to respond to the United States; Strategic Air Command had 209 B-36s, 133 RB-36s, 795 B-47s, 78 B-50s, 265 RB-47s, 592 KC-97s, and 411 F-84s. Against this, the Soviets only had a few Mya-4s, Tu-16s, and about 100 nuclear capable Tu-4As, and 1,000 conventionally capable Tu-4s.

There really wasn't any chance of the Soviet bombers getting through in appreciable numbers through the tightening defenses of NORAD to do significant damage to the US beyond a city or two. Meanwhile, SAC could blow away the Soviet Union, and the best the Soviet Union could do in reply was to blow away some of Europe plus an american city or two.

What Kruschev tried to do was an end-run around the defenses that the US had built up; he saw that the Soviet Union had a lead in rocketry, and that by building something that the Soviet Union had an edge in, and was at the time unstoppable, he could counter SAC far cheaper than it would cost the Soviet Union to build up an equivalent large heavy bomber force to blow away the US.

Interestingly, the same line of reasoning also occured to Eisenhower late in his presidency, as he became concerned with the growing US defense budget towards the end of his presidency, and wanted to find a cheaper way of blowing away the Soviet Union than having to build what appeared to him to be expensive bombers for SAC; it was him who cancelled the B-70 essentially - here's some irony for you - Kennedy ran on a basic pro-B-70 plank in his campaign, and then when he was elected, he essentially forgot that plank.

I hope this long post made some sense....

[Stuart]

You poor, poor targeteers. "Tell you what, I'll go back in there and BEG for peril."

I was working for the ARE at the time (Admiralty Reseach Establishment) That was in Britain, oh, getting on for forty years ago. Things were different back then, most young women regarded working as something they did while waiting to/in order to get a husband, after which they stopped. Working wives were very unusual and regarded with great suspicion by other wives. A civil servant was seen as a great catch and one had to be very careful in one's dealings. Trapping into marriage via claims of pregnancy (some genuine, some not) was pretty common. If it got around (rightly or wrongly) that an unmarried couple had "done it", there was immense pressure for them to get married. So you can imagine who was keen to spread said rumors.

Long time ago that.........

[Stuart]

The PRC has a rather uneven technology base, in some areas they're not doing too bad at all while in others they're failing miserably. One of the areas where they're well behind is making the specialty metal alloys needed for high performance jet engines and aircraft.

Thank you very much for sharing, that's very interesting. Another piece of data for my files.

[Norseman]

Also no... the idea for Al-Qaeda is to restore THE Caliphate that means the Caliph with an Ulama, now if you had appointed a Caliph with an advisory Ulama then I'd be fine with it.

But then you have your PhD, well I assume by original Caliphate you meant the Rashidun Caliphate? Or the Umayyids? Or the Abbasids? Or the Fatimids? Or the Almohads? Or the Ottoman one? Then again for convenience we could say Arab Caliphate, Andalusian Caliphate, and Ottoman Caliphate. Which one is it though? Which one does he have his PhD in?

As it happens, in nuclear weapons technology. I was able to consult people who have PhDs in the necessary historical periods. The background to TBO isn't just my creation, a lot of specialists in various areas added their opinions.

No... I asked the Ph.D you consulted, the historian, which Caliphate did he have his Ph.D in, what are his credentials, not yours.

I also notice a lot of appeals to authority instead of arguments, or references.

Quite frankly your Caliphate acts unlike any historical Caliphate, which is kind of understandable since the Taliban are rather extreme in their views. However the original Caliphates depended on the Dhimmis to pay taxes and do the work they didn't want to, none of them had the policies you describe towards non-Muslims.

But the TBO Caliphate is based upon the Afghanistan Taliban and they did (still do) carry out those actions.

Earlier you said: Pity the details come direct from source than. "The Caliphate" as proposed in al qaeda is exactly as described in TBO. Oh,. I agree the nomenclature might change a bit, but nothing of any substance. I had somebody with a PhD in the history of the original Caliphate era. We just updated it a little.

Which suggested that you were basing the TBO Caliphate on one of the original, historical, Caliphates. If however you are saying that the TBO Caliphate is basically the Wahabbi idea of the institution, with no real link to any of the historical Caliphates then we can let that matter lie.

However if the TBO Caliphate is not based on any OTL Caliphate, then why mention that you consulted an expert on them? Isn't that a bit like consulting an expert on early French Absolutism and Bossuet for advice on the Third Republic? Unless he is also an expert on Islam, and the Salafist / Qutbist interpretations thereof.

My argument is that a Pan-Islamic government would not, indeed could not, look anything like the Taliban due to a variety of reasons. Among them is that the various radicals would often be considered seriously heterodox by the Taliban. You are aware that the fighters in the Caucasus are mainly Sufis'? And that the Wahabbis strongly disapprove of Sufism?

There's also the fact that Afghan Islam has always been part Sufism, that is Islam mixed with native beliefs, and part very, very austere Islam. When you read about Nadir Shah's conquests in the 18th Century, and the Afghan invasions of India you're starting to see where they're coming from.

See above, note that if you can't find an Arabic name your readers would recognise then explain the terms briefly in the text, or don't use an Arabic term at all.

I'm writing fiction, not a historical treatise. I'm not going to lumber down the action with a load of extraneous explanations about inconsequential details like the names of positions. If it really irks you, imagine "Caliph" is a Western translation of teh real term. IT DOESN"T MATTER.,

Actually it's a transliteration, modern Muslims like the term Khalif, or Khilafa. However you lumber down the action with a lot of other stuff, why not use the word Vizier, and have a council of Viziers advicing the Caliph? I am pretty sure that most westerners would recognise that word as well.

"The Caliphs council of Viziers" and everyone goes "Yeah I know what a Caliph is and I know what a Vizier is," and I wouldn't object.

But okay... moving on.

However my point is that having a Taliban equivalent take power is ludicrous in the first place, because the Taliban is inspired and partially funded by the Wahabbis, and the Wahabbis only became important because... well because of all that Saudi oil money.

And in TBO there are different mechanisms leading to the same result

Well then what are they?

You still haven't explained WHY radical Islam managed to rise in the first place when several of the factors that led to its rise in OTL are no longer present. WHY do they hate the world so much that they're all willing to work together (a ridiculous idea mind you), they don't in OTL.

It's happening, I'm slowly filling in the details by inference. Have I written a story dedicated to it? No, and probably won't. There's not that level of interest.

Mr Slade, I am strongly coming to suspect that your knowledge of history, Islam, and this region does not even approach your knowledge of SAC affairs. You're not slowly filling in the blanks, but hoping that people will not notice the holes.

If you were to say "Yeah this is totally ludicrous I agree, but damn it I wanted to show what the Caliphate of Osama would really be like! And how you ought to deal with it, so just suspend disbelief," I would shut up and accept it.

Are you serious?

Deadly serious. The "skills' of bin Laden and Khomeini are entirely in the minds of their admirers. In fact, when looked at dispassionately, discarding the hype and propaganda, they're narrow-perspective, proovincial thugs with very little knowledge of understanding of the world.

Iran-Contras? Mind you that might not be acumen so much as... some kind of intelligence railway crash...

Not to mention hijacking the revolution and ridding himself of the socialists, while the USSR was at his bleeding border!

Stalin and Hitler were also a pack of utter loons, who made a lot of mistakes, but they knew how to politic!

Was he a thug? Hell yes! But a lot of thugs are pretty good at politics, that's how they got to power, and that's how they kept power.

This man is not an astute politician and skilled administrator?

No, they arn't. They're charismatic, I'll give them that but skilled, Nope.

So you don't need administrative skill to run a large organisation or a multi-million dollar business? You don't need administrative skill to launder money, to create a huge (and apparently profitable) honey exporting business and using it to smuggle things?

Let me put it this way: Tom Cruise is damned charismatic, but somehow I don't think that he'd be up for organising something like this. You need more than charisma.

To say that any of the founders of Al Qaeda lack political acumen is... well...

Accurate.

Rightio...

Assembling a large terrorist organisation from various disparate groups does not require administrative skill or the ability to politic...

Oh I'm not saying he's a genius, but he does need to be good at what he does.

Now they may be insane, they may be proceeding from rather dubious assumptions, and they may underestimate America (a common mistake) but that doesn't change that certain basic competence is needed to do what they did.

The rest of your comments are so irrelevent they don't even begin to deserve an answer.

You mean like, for instance, pointing out that apparently the Muslims don't necessarily hate us more than they hate each other? That sort of irrelevant thing?

Pointing out how Wahabbi and Taliban ideology contradicts commonly accepted facets of the four madhabs and that the adherents to said Madhabs wouldn't like it?

How about the fact that traditionally the Saudis and the Afghans have been the biggest nutters in the Islamic world, and every radical who wanted an audience would go there because no one else was really interested?

It seems like my remarks are less "irrelevent" and more hard to answer.

I also notice that your spelling and grammar goes down heavily whenever I push you on Islam, but never when you're questioned on anything else. I also notice a lot of appeals to authority "So and so says that this is true," where you won't even give references or even tell me what exactly so and so's credentials are.

Incidentally by references I mean "X said on page Y that..." but then again you got burned on something similar in regards to the B-36 page on Wikipedia.

If you have any reasonable remarks, I'll be happy to listen to them but what you have produced so far tells me nothing other than you don't like the basic novels. If you want to contribute to the pool of data that I build the TBO novels on, I would suggest you do so in a more erudite manner.

I am pointing out weaknesses in your perception of Islam, and how this will affect your proposed Caliphate. In that it won't be able to get off the ground.

I would refer you to the way Gospodin Stas has presented his arguments and input. We disagree profoundly on many key issues but he is obviously an honorable and well-informed person and I take everything he says very seriously, He makes good arguments and supports them well. I would advise you emulate him.

I am always open to input and added information. I think anybody who has helped with the TBO series will confirm that. However, at the moment, you have said nothing that makes me change my mind on any of the issues addressed. You'll need to do a lot better if you want to achieve that.

In short I had the audacity to ask questions you can't answer, and challenge your assumptions on Islam, duly noticed. Let the audience decide if my comments were irrelevant or not.

Stas doesn't upset you because you have rehearsed pat answers to anything he can say, and you have extensive knowledge of the field from your research for the books. Therefore if he makes an objection you have an answer, and even if he still objects everyone can see that you had an answer.

Now for my advice buy "Reliance of the Traveller," (there's also an online version) buy "Seven Pillars of Wisdom," and if you want a critical view check out Robert Spencer and Ayan Hirsi Ali. Read Ask the Imams view on Taqleed and the Salafis.

Quite frankly your Caliphate is like Jack Chick and the Spanish Inquisition uniting to take over Italy!

[MKSheppard]

Incidentally by references I mean "X said on page Y that..." but then again you got burned on something similar in regards to the B-36 page on Wikipedia.

I recall a debate where someone claimed that Such and Such B-36 had crashed because of the shock of the gun turrets firing and gave a link to a website claiming that.

I took out "Big Stick" and looked up the serial number given for that B-36 and found absolutely nothing to refer to any loss due to the shock of the armament firing causing the loss.

[MKSheppard]

Well then what are they?

Germany getting completely destroyed by Nuclear Attack. There were quite a few crosslinks between the Nazis and what eventually became the radical jihadist movement; most notably Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, in OTL.

[Norseman]

Incidentally by references I mean "X said on page Y that..." but then again you got burned on something similar in regards to the B-36 page on Wikipedia.

I recall a debate where someone claimed that Such and Such B-36 had crashed because of the shock of the gun turrets firing and gave a link to a website claiming that.

I took out "Big Stick" and looked up the serial number given for that B-36 and found absolutely nothing to refer to any loss due to the shock of the armament firing causing the loss.

Indeed, websites are notoriously bad, and books are excellent resources.

Note that as for sources I'm willing to take websites, or even a proper arguement (provided that it provides enough information for me to check it out myself), or even a description of events with enough key words to google it (I confess! Normally I don't go further than that )

It's just that when you're dealing with a technical question, like a SAM intercepting a Mach 3.5 aircraft, it's nice if someone provides the actual calculations! When you sit down to do the numbers you begin to realise that it's not as easy as it sounds.

However it's annoying to have to do the numbers myself, and when I'm not shown why something is so; and then I have someone talking nonsense about a subject I do know I start to distrust what this someone is saying.

[MKSheppard]

You know one of the depressing things about getting old is seeing on the Internet all the things I had to promise that, if I dreamed about them, I would smother myself with a pillow on waking.

I've heard that on another forum, probably spacebattles, that people are mocking Stuart for claiming that the information is classified, only to have me find it on the internet.

These people simply don't understand security classification in regards to the kind of job that Stuart works at. In his job, he encounters a lot of classified work and or documentation, and cannot talk about it.

For the interests of security, he has to assume that something he read 20 years ago with a CLASSIFIED stamp on it is still classified unless he finds out otherwise.

So it leads to stuff like this, when he doesn't know that the SR-71's flight manual with the performance and g loading annexes has been declassified, but I do.

FYI, if you're all interested in declassified material, I highly suggest EFlight Manuals com

You can buy the following from them on CD:

YF-12A Flight Manual: 15 Nov 69/15 Feb 71
Includes the performance data section.

B-58A-1 Flight Manual 10 May 68
Includes the complete 1B-58A-1-1 performance manual.

B-70(X)A-1 Flight Manual: 31 Aug 64/25 Jun 65
Includes the separate performance manual, 1B-70(X)A-1A.

You can even buy the manual for the F-15E, F-16C, and even the F/A-18E/F even tho they're recent aircraft; albeit with the proscription: Not Available For Export

[Norseman]

Well then what are they?

Germany getting completely destroyed by Nuclear Attack. There were quite a few crosslinks between the Nazis and what eventually became the radical jihadist movement; most notably Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, in OTL.

This is quite true, but it ignores the Nazi support of Arab nationalism, you are aware that Ba'athism is to a great degree inspired by National Socialism? With a goal of building the New Arab Man?

Certainly some radicals would have their strength enhanced, when it comes to Jew-hatred, and yes it wouldn't be nice to be a Jew in Palestine. However when you look at things like the Mosque That Sheltered Jews you realise it's not quite that clear cut.

A lot of traditional Muslims had a fondness for the Jews, and didn't like the idea of them being hurt. It sounds absurd I know, but the western anti-Semitism is a relatively recent import to the region.

The more fundamentalist a Muslim is the less likely he is to want to kill Dhimmi Jews, rebellious uppity Jews sure, but Dhimmis? Look at Iran, home to the largest Jewish community still living in a Muslim country (30-40K today!) In short being an Islamic nutcase doesn't necessarily mean that you want to kill or expel all infidels within your borders.

So now what? Well let me spitball a bit about a generic Nazi/Axis victory thing, and see what happens okay?

Well if the Nazi's occupy the region I'm sure a lot of Jews will die, especially in Palestine, but their best helpers in this would be National Socialist Arabs. The Islamic Radicals who back the Nazi's would obviously be the kind willing to work with western powers in order to get ahead, the proof of this is that they are ... well ... working with a western power to get ahead.

So lots of dead Jews, the Islamic Radicals get to strut their stuff, Ba'athists are promoted and then The Big One? If that is so then the question becomes why would these proto-Ba'athists collapse? Generally Ba'athist regimes and Arab nationalist regimes aren't that unstable.

Meanwhile there you have Persia, a pro-German state, one that needs some back up, and one that could help secure the Caucasus and points east. If there is no invasion of Persia, and no overthrow of the Shah in the 40s... then why would Mossadegh get to power in the first place? Forgive me if this is wrong but it seems odd...

For a fleeing German it would make far more sense to head to Persia and back the Shah, or to head to Arabia and back the Ba'athists.

And if the Nazi's did support radical Muslims they still wouldn't be Taliban, Sayyid al-Qutb was only getting around to writing now, so the radicals would be more Jew hating versions of regular Islam. Once Germany is gone and the surviving Jews are cowed, pleading, begging for mercy, moderates would probably regain control (they still need dhimmis after all).

Then there is Turkey, did that too get overthrown? Aside from opening the access to the Black Sea there isn't much Turkey could do aside from provide some poorly equipped warm bodies. The Turkish military did and do guarantee Turkish secularism, and a Turkish soldier with a mind to ramming a bayonet into you is a bit scarier than their Arab counterparts. Consider that the Turks have actually stood up to western armies, can you really say the same for the Arabs?

It gets worse when you consider that Turkey is the centre of some very powerful Sufi groups, who would be strongly opposed to proto-Talibanism. Killing Jews who misbehave is fine, but the ones that cringe and obey would probably be let to live, much like the Italian ones.

Now you see being a Muslim and accepting parts of western anti-Semitism does not make you Wahabbi or Taliban, and the situation in Palestine was rather peculiar since the Jews were forming fighting groups. Now if there is one thing that will bring about swift retaliation from the traditional state it is if one of the dhimmi groups tries to bring in foreign help or arm themselves.

With that in mind I wonder if the whole Palestinian connection wouldn't be more like... oh say... the Armenian Genocide? Which came about for many of the same reasons.

[Norseman]

GAH! The above link should be: Mosque That Sheltered Jews

[K. A. Pital]

I have Dmitry Lorza's book on the use of the Airacobra that has some good data

If you understand Russian, the following might be of interest: Mariinsky E.P., I flew an "Aircobra".

Oh, and no need to call me "gospodin", the whole point of the Russian Revolution was to get rid of that "slaves versus lords" relationship I like when people are comrades.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Well then what are they?

Germany getting completely destroyed by Nuclear Attack. There were quite a few crosslinks between the Nazis and what eventually became the radical jihadist movement; most notably Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, in OTL.

A lot of traditional Muslims had a fondness for the Jews, and didn't like the idea of them being hurt. It sounds absurd I know, but the western anti-Semitism is a relatively recent import to the region.

True, an example would be the Ancient city of Hebron where Jews lived in peace with their Arab neighbours for millenia... Until the Arabs brutally raped, slaughtered & burned them alive starting with an eye doctor in 1929 (Rather before most of the commonly cited causes of incitement but after Haj Amin el Hossini among others).

Look at Iran, home to the largest Jewish community still living in a Muslim country (30-40K today!)

25k actually, and yes they don't even want to leave.
Only 5k or so are willing to immigrate to Israel and not the US and thats with the massive subsidizations granted by the Israeli government and donations from foreign jews.

In short being an Islamic nutcase doesn't necessarily mean that you want to kill or expel all infidels within your borders.

Neither does being a Christian nut case, Jewish Fundie (Like, say Moses) or Fascist supremacist. It does make it a very likely scenario however.

Well if the Nazi's occupy the region I'm sure a lot of Jews will die, especially in Palestine, but their best helpers in this would be National Socialist Arabs.

Who? Never heard of them.

If there is no invasion of Persia, and no overthrow of the Shah in the 40s... then why would Mossadegh get to power in the first place?

You mean a Persian Shah and not the Iranian deposed Shah?

Once Germany is gone and the surviving Jews are cowed, pleading, begging for mercy, moderates would probably regain control (they still need dhimmis after all).

Yeah, we've seen that rabid anti-semitism tends to stop at "Well we still need the scientists or shop keepers for the economy to work" especially when Nazis or Islam/Christianity is involved:roll:

Killing Jews who misbehave is fine, but the ones that cringe and obey would probably be let to live, much like the Italian ones.

I may be mistaken but I was lead to understand that the Italian Jews were simply treated "Relatively" well over-all, not merely due to being servile as was the case with allmost all the cases of the jews (Barring a few exceptions such as the Ghetto Warsaw rebellion).

[Norseman]

Well then what are they?

Germany getting completely destroyed by Nuclear Attack. There were quite a few crosslinks between the Nazis and what eventually became the radical jihadist movement; most notably Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, in OTL.

A lot of traditional Muslims had a fondness for the Jews, and didn't like the idea of them being hurt. It sounds absurd I know, but the western anti-Semitism is a relatively recent import to the region.

True, an example would be the Ancient city of Hebron where Jews lived in peace with their Arab neighbours for millenia... Until the Arabs brutally raped, slaughtered & burned them alive starting with an eye doctor in 1929 (Rather before most of the commonly cited causes of incitement but after Haj Amin el Hossini among others).

Well Hebron is in Palestine, which brings up the rather odd situation there; the Jews in Palestine were arming (Haganah) as a result of the Arab riots.

Mind you this wasn't the first time that there's been riots, or that a bunch of Jews have been killed; but there's been riots were all kinds of religious minorities have been killed. In the past the Jews weren't singled out, the mob would cheerfully kill Christians too.

In short being an Islamic nutcase doesn't necessarily mean that you want to kill or expel all infidels within your borders.

Neither does being a Christian nut case, Jewish Fundie (Like, say Moses) or Fascist supremacist. It does make it a very likely scenario however.

Actually no it doesn't, if you're an Islamic nutter you are given a set of rules that you are to follow, and over the centuries these rules have generally been followed.

1. Ask that the infidel convert to Islam.
2. Demand that they pay the Jizya (Poll tax) and accept Dhimmi status.
3. If they refuse both of the previous points, kill them until they give in.

Dhimmi status pretty much means that your status is lack that of black man in the south in the 1920s or thereabouts. It means there'll be occasional riots, lynchings, beatings, rapes, and general ritualised segregation.

Well if the Nazi's occupy the region I'm sure a lot of Jews will die, especially in Palestine, but their best helpers in this would be National Socialist Arabs.

Who? Never heard of them.

A lot of people in the region admired Hitler for a lot of different reasons, you have the proto-Nasserists, you have proto-Ba'athists; if the Nazi's win I have no doubt that a bunch of Arabs would find this National Socialist thing a good idea.

If there is no invasion of Persia, and no overthrow of the Shah in the 40s... then why would Mossadegh get to power in the first place?

You mean a Persian Shah and not the Iranian deposed Shah?

Argh! Sorry brain fart the name change was made in 1935...

No what I mean is this, after the Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Iran the then ruling Reza Shah was forced to abdicate.

In The Big One there'd be no Anglo-Soviet invasion, obviously, and when the Germans win they'd find that Iran would be a more or less willing ally. Germany was massively bolstering Iran, and with the combination of German aid, and a lack of an invasion, why would the Shah (or his heir) be forced to back down in the first place?

There are knock on effects here.

Cards on the table again, I'm interested in Iran/Persia because I know a lot of people from the area, and we spend a lot of time talking about it.

Once Germany is gone and the surviving Jews are cowed, pleading, begging for mercy, moderates would probably regain control (they still need dhimmis after all).

Yeah, we've seen that rabid anti-semitism tends to stop at "Well we still need the scientists or shop keepers for the economy to work" especially when Nazis or Islam/Christianity is involved:roll:

Well yes...

This is where you have to look at history, and make the comparison with blacks in America in the 1920s (or earlier even).

Now lets imagine that the United States was invaded, conquered, by a group of Muslims who divide the states up among themselves. Let us imagine that in Alabama a group of black people are starting to set up farms and business, buying out, and out-competing the white people. Lets imagine that they demand equality, and when you lynch a few of them they create armed militias!

Would you be surprised if the local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan became a lot more important and radical than it was in surrounding states?

However the situation is still such that most people would just want those "damn negrahs" to go back to behaving the way they ought.

My justification for this belief is basically that this is what happened over and over under similar circumstances: When one of the dhimmi groups became unruly massacres commenced until they broke down and grovelled, at which point you stop killing them.

One of the reasons that the Armenians were massacred is that they tried to claim equality with Muslims, they made tons of petitions, they sought the help and protection of foreign (Christian) powers, and they armed themselves.

The comparison with Palestine is striking, since that's pretty much exactly what the Jews there did, and it seems that the reactions were also very similar: Escalating levels of violence and hatred.

The thing is that once the unruly Dhimmi is subdued an Islamic nutter would stop the violence and begin collecting taxes again. On the other hand anti-Semite inspired by secular sources wouldn't stop until he'd driven out or killed the Jews in his area. So ironically you'd be better off with a fanatic, but traditional, Muslim than with someone more secularized!

For evidence of this consider that there are still Jews in Iran, and also consider a lot of weird minorities across the region...

Remember also that until 1947-1949 there were huge Jewish communities in every single Arab country, and they weren't driven out until after the establishment of the State of Israel. In this timeline there is no state of Israel, and the remaining Jews are cringing and cowering, as Dhimmi's (or niggers) ought.

So basically it probably depends on who gets to rule what, if you give an area to the Italians there might be some dead Jews, but mostly they'd be forced to stay in their traditional roles.

If you give them to the Arabs themselves, quite possibly more dead Jews and Christians, but in that age the Arab intellectuals were willing to consider "Ataturks Way."

If you give it to the Germans or a German puppet with National Socialist ideology... well I think the answer to that one is pretty obvious! They wouldn't need gaschambers either, famine, knives and clubs would do the trick as it did for the Armenians.

Killing Jews who misbehave is fine, but the ones that cringe and obey would probably be let to live, much like the Italian ones.

I may be mistaken but I was lead to understand that the Italian Jews were simply treated "Relatively" well over-all, not merely due to being servile as was the case with allmost all the cases of the jews (Barring a few exceptions such as the Ghetto Warsaw rebellion).

I'm sorry, my bad, I should have specified that I meant Jews in Mussolini's Italy (if you didn't get that). Mussolini was not particularly anti-Semitic himself, and only imposed anti-Semitic laws because Hitler demanded he did, and until 1943 the Italian Jews were safe from expulsion.

[Stuart]

No... I asked the Ph.D you consulted, the historian, which Caliphate did he have his Ph.D in, what are his credentials, not yours. I also notice a lot of appeals to authority instead of arguments, or references.

I'll answer this with just one point. By your own admission you haven't read the canon of stories and you are unaware of the background detailing that;s getting shaded in as they progress. Therefore every comment you make is worthless.

I am also very well aware of your real motivations in bringing this matter up. They do you no credit at all. If you have intelligent, informed and constructive criticisms I am more than happy to take them aboard and will adjust the timeline to accommodate them. However, that is not the case here and I can't be bothered to waste time replying to posts that are inspired by nothing more significant than a personal vendetta (a vendetta by the way that is entirely one-sided.)

[Stuart]

If you understand Russian, the following might be of interest:Mariinsky E.P., I flew an "Aircobra". Oh, and no need to call me "gospodin", the whole point of the Russian Revolution was to get rid of that "slaves versus lords" relationship I like when people are comrades.

Yes, but I spent most of my working life trying of reverse the situation caused by said revolution . I must admit that I have a dislike for the promiscuous use of the word "comrade", to me its an honorific that is shared by front-line soldiers and using it in other contexts cheapens it and the context of its proper use. The British socialist movement used to use "Brother" as a form of address, both as an honorific "Brother Fred" and as an address. "Brothers!" That seemed to me much more in tune with the revolutionary ideals

Unfortunately, I don't speak Russian, I can read it, painfully and slowly, but speaking it is a no-no. However. we've got a lot of Russian material translated over here now so I'll see if its available. Over the last three or four years, a lot of Russian technical and historical books have been translated into English and they've been eye-opening in many senses.

There's a traditional sort of pattern to information disclosure. At first, almost nothing is available and what data is available is highly misleading, then, when controls break down, there's a flood of information, nearly all of which is wrong. Finally, once that flood receeds the real stuff starts to come out and trickles out over a prolonged period of time. In the case of Russian data, we had the first situation prevailing up to around 1988, then we had the second prevailing until 2000. Finally, the accurate stories are just about coming out now (have been for the last four or five years). Some of it is really embarrassing, a lot of what we thought we learned in the 1990s turned out to be flat wrong.

[Stuart]

These people simply don't understand security classification in regards to the kind of job that Stuart works at. In his job, he encounters a lot of classified work and or documentation, and cannot talk about it. For the interests of security, he has to assume that something he read 20 years ago with a CLASSIFIED stamp on it is still classified unless he finds out otherwise. So it leads to stuff like this, when he doesn't know that the SR-71's flight manual with the performance and g loading annexes has been declassified, but I do.

That's a pretty nice summary of the situation. If something was classified when I saw it, I have to assume it is still classified until I learn to the contrary. In fact, even if that particular piece of data has been declassified, it may well be that I still can't use it because the context in which I knew it may reveal something that is still classified. For example (this is emphatically just an example) the fact that someone was an air defense systems specialist and knew the performance details of the SR-71 may give a clue as to what the classified capabilities of the missiles used in that defense system may be.

I don't use the "classified" stamp as a get-out-of-jail-free card. If a conversation runs into a classified area (or one that might be), I'll say that and withdraw from that conversation. I've never used the "if I told you, I'd have to kill you" gambit and view with grave suspicion those who do.

This brings up another minor issue. Every so often somebody asks something that I can't answer. In such cases, I don't answer that question. So please, If I do ignore or not respond to a question, it's not intended as disrespect or a slight, it's simply that question intrudes on an area I can't talk about and rather than use the "if I told you" gambit, I'd rather say nothing. So, no offense is intended and I hope none has been taken.

Of course sometimes I just forget to answer and that's old age creeping up on me.

In any case, as Mark has pointed out, much of what was classified when I knew it has now been declassified and is available on the net (including some books I paid a lot of money for .. grrrrrr....) I can't keep track of everything that is being declassified so I assume that such data is still covered until I learn otherwise.

[Norseman]

No... I asked the Ph.D you consulted, the historian, which Caliphate did he have his Ph.D in, what are his credentials, not yours. I also notice a lot of appeals to authority instead of arguments, or references.

I'll answer this with just one point. By your own admission you haven't read the canon of stories and you are unaware of the background detailing that;s getting shaded in as they progress. Therefore every comment you make is worthless.

By that same token your comments against Stirlings work would also be useless. They're not of course since there are technical issues that you can argue if they are relayed to you. It is the same here, there are technical issues that can be relayed and argued against.

However that's beside the point since I didn't say that I hadn't read any of it, what I said was that I had to force myself to read TBO, and couldn't get through "Crusade." I did however read the section on Crusade regarding the government and expansion of the Caliphate, the relevant bits for the discussion. I've spoken to others who read it, even supporters of yours who tried to justify it. When you raised arguments I've responded to them but... quite frankly you don't have any real arguments in favour of your position. If you did you could say "Look at these samples from my writing here... and here... and here..." and then "Look at these historical figures, and the developments there."

You seem to have a notion that the ideas and practises of the Wahabbi sect, and similar sects, are far more prevalent than they really are. I pointed out in considerable detail why the Wahabbis are disliked, and why the Taliban are very much creatures of their time and place. Fanatical movements, like any other movement, are often a product of who has money, who the educated elite supports, and who can capture the imagination of the people. Anyone who wants to create an alternate, ahistorical, movement has to show how it appears, who funds it, who its great minds are, and how they capture peoples imagination.

If I were writing an alt-hist Islamic movement I'd probably start out with a Sufi movement, they've generally been much better at inspiring people and causing mass movements. Look at the various Mahdist uprisings, or the fighting in the Caucasus, check out the Naqshbandi and the Golden Chain. Very interesting people the Sufis, and if Secularism collapses in Turkey it won't be a bunch of Wahabbis that take over, it'd be the re-establishment of the Sufi Dervish orders.

That of course would lead to a result quite different from the Taliban Caliphate you had in mind, it wouldn't spread all that far, unless they could convince tons of people the Mahdi had come, but it could be interesting indeed. It would also be somewhat more realistic since Sufi orders have often been the centre of social movements.

The thing is that if you went "Ah well alright, this is a cautionary tale, don't bother with the whys and hows" I'd be fine with it, except you really ought to call it the Vizier council and not the Caliph council! My problem stems from you claiming its a realistic development.

I am also very well aware of your real motivations in bringing this matter up. They do you no credit at all. If you have intelligent, informed and constructive criticisms I am more than happy to take them aboard and will adjust the timeline to accommodate them. However, that is not the case here and I can't be bothered to waste time replying to posts that are inspired by nothing more significant than a personal vendetta (a vendetta by the way that is entirely one-sided.)

Very well... I really don't have a personal vendetta against you, I'm not sure why you'd think so. If I did I'd be doing stuff like slamming your book on Amazon, or making personal insults, or maybe even trolling your board. I'm not doing any of those things, I'm merely raising some objections to a story you wrote, hardly vendetta material.

I'm somewhat cold to your writing that is true, but why should that bother you? Others seem to enjoy it quite a bit. I've never, to the best of my knowledge, insulted you personally, your writing certainly, and your statements about Islam but never you personally.

My problem is with the realism of the alternate history itself, it offends me, go to the soc.history.what-if discussion, and don't run to the echo chamber that you have on your own board and go "they are ignorant fools who know nothing of the B-36 and the B-70" that was one guy. The rest of them levelled some interesting criticisms of the history in The Big One, criticism you'd do well to read and pay heed to. Indeed if you have a usenet account do go there, it's a civilized and interesting place.

[K. A. Pital]

I must admit that I have a dislike for the promiscuous use of the word "comrade", to me its an honorific that is shared by front-line soldiers and using it in other contexts cheapens it and the context of its proper use.

I don't recall it being used in the Russian army pre-revolution. The word, at least in Russia, is definetely tied up deeply with the Revolution much more than with armed forces. In the armed forces, people use the word "brother" in it's soft form (bratishka), I'm sure you know that. So it's kind of reverse from Britain, all people are comrades but only soldiers are brothers Seems right to me.

Over the last three or four years, a lot of Russian technical and historical books have been translated into English and they've been eye-opening in many senses.

Indeed. So far I can also see that the Western historiography of Russia has improved throughout the 2000s. Must've been hard to shake the grip of Cold War illusions, I think.

Some of it is really embarrassing, a lot of what we thought we learned in the 1990s turned out to be flat wrong.

Any examples?

[The Yosemite Bear]

well traditionally the jews were respected as doctors, and wisemen, and the Arabs protected them from the christians.

[Stuart]

I don't recall it being used in the Russian army pre-revolution. The word, at least in Russia, is definetely tied up deeply with the Revolution much more than with armed forces. In the armed forces, people use the word "brother" in it's soft form (bratishka), I'm sure you know that. So it's kind of reverse from Britain, all people are comrades but only soldiers are brothers Seems right to me.

That's an intersting insight. Thank you very much. I'll use that one (and ammend a previous story to allow for it). If you want a cameo in Winter Warriors by way of a thank-you, let me know the name you'd like used.

Indeed. So far I can also see that the Western historiography of Russia has improved throughout the 2000s. Must've been hard to shake the grip of Cold War illusions, I think.

Very hard, I first started working in the defense industry in 1972 so I had almost twenty years of indoctrination to shake off. Some people never quite managed it. Fortunately, they're all dying off or retiring now so things are sort of simplifying. It's hard to deal with a very complex situation in some remote place without one of the oldsters trying to turn it into an US vs the Soviets confrontation.

Any examples?

A lot of it was naval. For example, we got a lot of information on how Soviet-era warship command systems worked. Very interesting and plausible but utterly wrong. Three reasons why. One was that the people who were telling us had seen small parts of the system and assumed that their small part could be extrapolated to the system as a whole. Another was on our side, people took that data and extrapolated from it without labelling the difference between what they knew and what they were guessing at. The British are particularly bad at that. Finally, a lot of the stuff was seaman's stories (and I suspect was exaggerated to keep the money and vodka flowing from attentive westerners).

A good example was the "Project 82R battlecruiser". Project 82 was a well-known and well-documented design - I have some pictures of the shot-up and incomplete hull. Stories started to spread that there was a missile-based version of that design labelled Project 82R. It's now pretty much certain there never was such a design. There were plans for a missile-based version of Project 82 but it wasn't called 82R. What happened was somebody heard of those missile versions and assumed the Project Number would stay the same with an R suffix for Raketny. Hence 82R. Then, the Bullfrog Tendancy got to work, everybody added their own little bits and interpretations and that was that.

Missiles were pretty mixed up as well although we were able to filter out the garbage a bit better from photographic stuff we had already. EW is another area that was seriously messed up. What most people do now is scrub everything we'd thought we'd learned in the 1990s and work from scratch using current information.

[Norseman]

well traditionally the jews were respected as doctors, and wisemen, and the Arabs protected them from the christians.

Arabs and Ottomans, and traditionally the flow of refugees went mainly from the west to the east. Mind you on some occasions, when the Ottomans decided to destroy a particular minority, or when the oppression in some area got too bad, there was emigration from east to west; but mostly it went west to east.

To a great extent because from an Islamic point of view Jews and Christians were just that, Jews and Christians, not bogomils, Karaites, Orthodox, Catholic, or whatever. In short if you were some weird heretic you'd be treated like any other Christian, if there were a lot of you you'd get your own Millet that is you get to live under your own religious laws and can petition the Sultan.

The Millet system was really brilliant, you could play everyone up against each other, keep them happy since they got to have whatever weird rules they wanted, and better yet the Millet would punish troublemakers before they got to make trouble for you! Well that was the idea anyway.

Now earlier I mentioned the beatings, riots, rapes, and what have you. Those were standard staples of life, you could prosper but keeping a low profile was a good idea.

Meanwhile in Europe if you were a heretic they wanted you very much dead, so it was second class citizenship versus death... easy choice for most.

Thing is that Europe improved, a lot, the Ottoman Empire stayed the same, and as I said now you're comparing total equality with being a black man in Alabama in 1920... On the other hand Islam does permit you to convert.

In essence once you stopped behaving like that you'd be met with violence and attacks, the idea being to intimidate you into cringing and paying taxes. If you fought back there'd be more violence to tell you what's what. If you fought back properly and brought weapons... well you just violated the Dhimma, and instead of being a protected minority you're now at war with the Ummah. That is the theory anyway.

[K. A. Pital]

That's an intersting insight. Thank you very much. I'll use that one (and ammend a previous story to allow for it). If you want a cameo in Winter Warriors by way of a thank-you, let me know the name you'd like used.

Oh. Then just some more insight so that you don't use it the wrong way.
1) "Bratishka" and "brat" is more commonly used in the post-WWII period, especially Afghan war. This is a manner of speech between ordinary soldiers, non-subordinate, informal. Between soldiers, it was also used in WWII. However, it's not a Navy or Airforce thing, it's used in ground forces and special forces. Mostly used in highly fraternized units.

2) During the wars, from WWII and Afghanistan, subordinate speech was always "tovarisch [rank]". Even informal subordinate speech. For example, "tovarisch major" or "tovarish kapitan". In all types of forces (Navy, Air, ground).

3) Between the soldiers of lower rank who aren't that fraternized or simply don't know each other, no common argo is used. There's no "comrade private" (tovarish ryadovoy), sometimes they use "bratishka" informally, but if it's between subordinate people, they use "soldier, warrior, fighter". For example, if a lieutenant from another platoon comes around who doesn't know the soldiers by name/nickname _yet_, he uses extensively "soldier, warrior, fighter". Of which "soldier" is the most neutral, the other two are slightly disparaging and used during drills and disciplinary exercise.

4) Informal subordination and relation (dedovshina), the higher status of older soldiers versus younger, which became increasingly more prevalent during Afghan war (and was almost absent in WWII), has the elder soldiers calling youngsters "duhi" (spirits), "dushman", or "synok" (child, son).

5) "Friend" (drug) is rarely used during the latter days of the Soviet Army (1970s, Afghan), but quite used between ordinary members, especially of the airforce, in WWII times.

That's about it. The Russian military argo is complex, so I hope that gave you some insight for correct usage.

If you want a cameo in Winter Warriors by way of a thank-you, let me know the name you'd like used.

Why miss the opportunity? Stanislav (short: Stas) Knyaginichev. To pay homage to my GP who went all the way to Berlin but accidentaly died of pneumonia shortly upon return. The informal nickname for such a soldier would be most certainly "Knyaz" because of the surname

[Sidewinder]

Sorry if this is off-topic, but what does "gospodin" mean?

[fgalkin]

Sorry if this is off-topic, but what does "gospodin" mean?

"Mister"

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Zed Snardbody]

Sorry if this is off-topic, but what does "gospodin" mean?

I really wouldn't worry about being off topic at this point.