Draka vs TBO America

[Cecelia5578]

I think I should preface this post by saying that watching Stuart and Stas go at it has been some of the most intellectually stimulating posting I have read on this board, ever.

Now on topic.

Well they deploy superduper virus-hybrids and "blackpox"; basically the worst possible virulent bioweapons. Their ideology is so backward they are literally losing modern technological base, but they can do sophisticated genetics and biological research, apparently.

There is some precedent for this happening. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Muslim world was largely responsible for the saving of many Greek and Roman works of Mathematics, Philosophy and Astonomy. .

Mostly via the Jewish and Christian inhabitants of the various medieval Muslim polities, rather than any original Islamic scholarship.

[Norseman]

I know I'm not supposed to post again, but I just had to.

I think I should preface this post by saying that watching Stuart and Stas go at it has been some of the most intellectually stimulating posting I have read on this board, ever.

Indeed it's been quite interesting.

My own performance re Stuart has been a bit more one sided, but when the other side is initially unwilling or unable to make any valid arguments, and then refuses outright to talk to you at all, it's a bit hard to have a discussion.

Bit of a digression there, but for the record if anyone goes back to page 5 here and starts reading I hope they take note of who had actual arguments and information, and who had to rely on bluster, calls to authority, and outright insults.

Now on topic.

Indeed, and let me add I am not going to talk about the viability of biowarfare, just your statements here.

Well they deploy superduper virus-hybrids and "blackpox"; basically the worst possible virulent bioweapons. Their ideology is so backward they are literally losing modern technological base, but they can do sophisticated genetics and biological research, apparently.

There is some precedent for this happening. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Muslim world was largely responsible for the saving of many Greek and Roman works of Mathematics, Philosophy and Astonomy. Not only did they save it, but they made many improvements upon it. However, when it came to brand new thinking, they were far behind the European Catholics. So, precedent does exist for muslim groups being extremely good at improving upon already existing technologies, even while idealogically crippling themselves for the future.

Not quite, there's the first objection which is that they didn't really have any native developments at all, but rather relied upon Jewish, Christian and Persian traditions (and people) to continue with their research. This is however somewhat unfair, there were several Muslim scientists (though most were converted Persians), but...

Second objection is that though followers of the Mu'tazili school did indeed make contributions to philosophy and science (often the same in those days) they were considered heretical and persecuted. There was a time however where they could practise openly, and where they spread across the Muslim world. Then the factions run by Al-Ghazali gained prominence, and that was the end of most native developments.

Third objection is that the Ottoman Empire did field the first submarine to fire its tubes under water, but this was due to imported expertise in the form of Thorsten Nordenfelt and the same was true for the giant cannon "Basilic" which was built by Urban of Hungary a Christian mercenary.

Those Muslim states that have been able to conduct independent research (Iraq, Iran, Pakistan) are generally those who have not succumbed to Talibanic lines of thought, and who have or had functioning universities where things like Cause and Effect are taught.

Cause and Effect are considered Haram by the Taliban (and many/most other conservative Islamic schools), that's right Cause and Effect is considered a blasphemy, and why? Because all Causes and all Effects are brought about by Allah who is the only Cause and Effect; if you throw a cotton ball into the fire it does not burn and blacken because of laws of nature, but rather because Allah wills it, and if Allah willed differently it'd be left unmolested.

Now there are theological interpretations to get around that, but they are cumbersome, and they require a flexibility that I don't think a Taliban style regime would have in the first place.

Whether the author is utilizing this historical precedent is entirely another matter, and as I haven't read the primary source someone more familiar with it can probably finish up all the analysis from here.

Somehow I don't think that the regime displayed in "Crusade" has anything to do with the Rationalist school of thought in Islam, and if they are actively purging the outsiders and the impure they are presumably getting rid of anyone who writes from left to right as well...

How exactly a university and a science program is supposed to function there I don't know, and given what happened to the Mu'tazilis I sure wouldn't be comfortable having a PhD in the Caliphate.

[Cecelia5578]

Norseman,
I for one have enjoyed your posts. I think you bring up some good issues as to the viability of the TBO Caliphate (as well as a real life Caliphate for that matter). TBO is of course technically accurate, as far as military tech is concerned, but I for one have not enjoyed the geopolitical flight of fancy that happened after the original TBO story-as has been said, there's too much handwavium involved to get things to where the author wants them to be, I'm sure to also prove a real world political point as well.

[Junghalli]

There is some precedent for this happening. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Muslim world was largely responsible for the saving of many Greek and Roman works of Mathematics, Philosophy and Astonomy. Not only did they save it, but they made many improvements upon it. However, when it came to brand new thinking, they were far behind the European Catholics. So, precedent does exist for muslim groups being extremely good at improving upon already existing technologies, even while idealogically crippling themselves for the future.

The problem here is that empiricism is absolutely fundamental to modern science, and it's also fundamentally incompatible with the Caliphate's attitudes on science, which seem to be similar to those of Christian creationists. You don't just need empiricism to be innovative, you need empiricism to be a competent scientist, period.
I can think of two ways the Caliphate might make scientific advances:

1) Doublethink. Their scientists are trained to take a strictly pragmatic, empiricist view of what they see in the lab but to think of it as ultimately subordinate to religion i.e. we use physics because it works for us but ultimately it works only because it's the manifestation of the will of Allah and if Allah ever felt like it He could make it work differently.

2) Most of their scientists are foreigners.

[Norseman]

There is some precedent for this happening. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Muslim world was largely responsible for the saving of many Greek and Roman works of Mathematics, Philosophy and Astonomy. Not only did they save it, but they made many improvements upon it. However, when it came to brand new thinking, they were far behind the European Catholics. So, precedent does exist for muslim groups being extremely good at improving upon already existing technologies, even while idealogically crippling themselves for the future.

The problem here is that empiricism is absolutely fundamental to modern science, and it's also fundamentally incompatible with the Caliphate's attitudes on science, which seem to be similar to those of Christian creationists.

Worse, the Caliphate is worse than Creationists, much worse. See a Creationist goes through all kinds of mental contortions to make the evidence fit the mould of Genesis being literally true; water canopies, the varying speed of light, etc etc.

However you can be a creationist, and even a Young Earth creationist, and be an excellent scientist, provided of course that your area of expertise is not geology or biology. In short a Creationist could be a chemist, a metallurgist, a physicist, and so forth...

This is literally impossible if you can't accept Cause and Effect.

You don't just need empiricism to be innovative, you need empiricism to be a competent scientist, period.
I can think of two ways the Caliphate might make scientific advances:

1) Doublethink. Their scientists are trained to take a strictly pragmatic, empiricist view of what they see in the lab but to think of it as ultimately subordinate to religion i.e. we use physics because it works for us but ultimately it works only because it's the manifestation of the will of Allah and if Allah ever felt like it He could make it work differently.

2) Most of their scientists are foreigners.

Both options have been used extensively, but the Ottoman Empire for one generally relied on hired foreign mercenaries. The thing is that the Ottomans could hire you and let you keep your religion, and even drink alcohol and eat pork, no problem. Then they'd pay you handsomely and you could leave.

Likewise the Saudi's have tons of foreigners working for them, most of the important work is done by highly paid European expatriates. The deal is similar there, though you run a small risk of floggings and what have you.

The Taliban on the other hand failed to attract any foreigners (Islamic volunteers excepted), and indeed managed to piss off even other Muslims.

I might risk working for the Saudi's if the money was good, the booze was flowing, and most people would after all treat me nice. The Caliphate is simply too batshit insane for any of that.

Note that most countries in the region at least try to have universities, though most of them don't work too well. They also send their smartest youngsters abroad to learn there, after giving them a modicum of education at home.

The Talibans idea of education was a madrasa where the boys could be taught how to recite the Quran and take it up the ass, both skills would no doubt be very useful in Caliphate society.

[Junghalli]

This is literally impossible if you can't accept Cause and Effect.

Actually, I can think of a pretty straightforward way to consider Cause and Effect blasphemous and still have science. It's along the same lines as the rebuttal to the "what if the world was a giant simulation" argument against empiricism. So what? Even if the world was a giant simulation we live in the simulation, the laws of physics work consistently in the simulation, so for practical purposes we might as well consider them laws.

Likewise you could say the laws of physics don't exist everything happens because it's the will of Allah - so what? When you're designing an airplane and want to make it aerodynamic it doesn't really matter whether certain shapes are better than other because of the laws of physics or because it's the will of Allah; either way the shapes that work best are consistent so while you might philosophically consider it the will of Allah when actually designing the plane you might as well treat them as physical laws. Extend this to physics in general and you can carry on with the scientific method while still being philosophically correct.
A bigger problem might be with anything that concerns itself with the study of the past, like paleontology, because then you may run into problems with literalist interpretations of creation etc. I guess you could use the old creationist line: "God created false evidence of Earth being really old to test our faith."

Somehow though a reactionary regime like the Caliphate doesn't strike me as having the mental agility for this. Reactionary regimes tend to behave more along the lines of consistently picking the most hard-line literalist interpretation of everything; one of their greatest fears is that people will reinterpret their ideology into tolerance of the very things they want to get rid of.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The Talibans idea of education was a madrasa where the boys could be taught how to recite the Quran and take it up the ass, both skills would no doubt be very useful in Caliphate society.

So they continued that wonderful ME tradition of male sodomy in order to preserve female virtue?

[Norseman]

The Talibans idea of education was a madrasa where the boys could be taught how to recite the Quran and take it up the ass, both skills would no doubt be very useful in Caliphate society.

So they continued that wonderful ME tradition of male sodomy in order to preserve female virtue?

That too, and of course this is Afghanistan, the saying is that when the birds fly over Kandahar they use only one wing, the other one covers their ass.

[Norseman]

This is literally impossible if you can't accept Cause and Effect.

Actually, I can think of a pretty straightforward way to consider Cause and Effect blasphemous and still have science. It's along the same lines as the rebuttal to the "what if the world was a giant simulation" argument against empiricism. So what? Even if the world was a giant simulation we live in the simulation, the laws of physics work consistently in the simulation, so for practical purposes we might as well consider them laws.

You think there's no cause and effect inside a simulation or a computer program? Let me assure you that this is not so... I'll give you a simple example...

$i = RandomNumber(1, 2);

if($i == 1){do something}
else {do something else}

$i is set to be 1 or 2, the if test checks which it is, that and the randomness of $i is the cause; then the if test does something based on which it is.

Now if I were to study a program or webpage thoroughly, I would pretty soon have an idea of how it works and what the mechanisms are. Mind you there can be hidden surprises, and there are lots of ways to skin a cat, but it all adds up to one thing: I begin figuring out how the computer thinks, and how the program works, in short I have some understanding of what's happening.

In short if this is a simulation then Cause and Effect is in effect.

Likewise you could say the laws of physics don't exist everything happens because it's the will of Allah - so what? When you're designing an airplane and want to make it aerodynamic it doesn't really matter whether certain shapes are better than other because of the laws of physics or because it's the will of Allah; either way the shapes that work best are consistent so while you might philosophically consider it the will of Allah when actually designing the plane you might as well treat them as physical laws. Extend this to physics in general and you can carry on with the scientific method while still being philosophically correct.

Aaaaah but here you see you run into a problem: by analysing it thus, and figuring out how Allah seems to make the universe work, aren't you trying to understand the mind of Allah? HARAM!

Allah is so wholly transcendent that we cannot comprehend him at all, he is not bound by logic, or his own word, or morality of any sort!

This is quite different from the Christian view of a rational creator who created a universe that works according to set rules, and where gaining insights into the mind of God is not seen as blasphemy. Incidentally that goes for Hindu philosophy as well, even if full comprehension is impossible you can at least grasp some of it.

A bigger problem might be with anything that concerns itself with the study of the past, like paleontology, because then you may run into problems with literalist interpretations of creation etc. I guess you could use the old creationist line: "God created false evidence of Earth being really old to test our faith."

I thought the devil did it?

Incidentally ask a Christian "Why would God try to deceive you," and he's in a bit of a conundrum, but Allah is not under any obligation to tell the truth, or to not deceive you. It's all part of being wholly transcendent.

Somehow though a reactionary regime like the Caliphate doesn't strike me as having the mental agility for this. Reactionary regimes tend to behave more along the lines of consistently picking the most hard-line literalist interpretation of everything; one of their greatest fears is that people will reinterpret their ideology into tolerance of the very things they want to get rid of.

It gets even better when you realise that the Taliban and company are actually worse than most hardline Muslims; oh sure many hardliners want them restored, but that's only because any Muslim ruler is better than an infidel.

[Norseman]

...

On another matter, I'd like some advice on infantry points. I'm working out the order of battle for the Kola Peninsula. The basic situation is that Kola has been cut off by a German advance that reached the White Sea west of Archangel. There are Canadian and Russian forces defending Kola with supplies coming in by way of arctic convoys to Murmansk. This is the approximate front line (red lines), the yellow ones are national borders,

...

The Canadians are mostly along the Finnish section of the front, the Finns are keeping largely quiet following heavy losses in the 1943 and 44 seasons (they learned that trying to move in daylight with American tactical air power around isn't terribly bright).

I snipped the irrelevant parts, you can see the whole post here now I didn't answer this before because I wanted to check my sources.

You are asking the wrong questions

The first question you should ask yourself is this: What are Finlands objectives in this war?

There are two objectives:
1. Maintain Finnish independence.
2. Maintain Finnish territorial integrity.

The second question you must ask yourself is this: Are these objectives contrary to the Allied objective of defeating Nazi Germany?

As far as I can see pre-Winter War borders and a free, independent Finland would not prevent or necessarily hinder victory against Nazi Germany.

The third question is this: Can the Allies give viable guarantees to Finland in regards to her two objectives?

If they can supply a group of Canadians well enough to push that far into the lake region, AND resist Nazi offensives, AND bring enough tactical air to make the Finns keep their heads down in daytime. Well then the answer is most certainly yes, they can attack and repel any large scale amphibious operations the Nazi's might try to launch, and they can bring in supplies through Murmansk.

The fourth question is this: Would it be of benefit to the Allies if Finland switched sides?

Well lets see one less front, a large area to stage attacks on Germany, several new harbours in the Baltic, and even in propaganda terms the defection of Finland would definitely increase the spirits of the home front.

The fifth question is this: Would Finland accept a deal of Independence, Territorial Integrity, and, possibly, some compensation during and after the war in return for them switching sides?

This question is so easily answered that it boggles the mind: Yes they would! They wouldn't even hesitate, it gives them everything they wanted and fought for in the first place, and it frees them from their co-belligerency with Germany.

I mean instead of Russians moving in they'd have Canadians and Americans, far more palatable I would say. The loss of Baltic shipping would be bad, but they'd live, and it wouldn't be so bad as the constant attrition on the front, and the American air raids.

Look at the real war, where the victorious Soviet Union made a separate peace with Finland, and no one seemed to be all that offended by that. They demanded and got some territorial gains and reparations, but that was all, Finland was never occupied or forced to surrender. Indeed it seems that everyone in the west was a bit embarrassed by the whole Winter War and having to fight a proper western democracy.

Well there's no need for that here!

In short the question shouldn't be how the fighting is carried out and what the OoBs are, the question should be why there's any fighting going on at all.

[K. A. Pital]

There are two objectives:
1. Maintain Finnish independence.
2. Maintain Finnish territorial integrity.

You dropped something. "If Germans are successful, make territorial aquisitions where possible". And that's a rather big piece of it, y'know.

They wouldn't even hesitate, it gives them everything they wanted and fought for in the first place, and it frees them from their co-belligerency with Germany.

The problem is they didn't "want" to get rid of their co-belligerents, they always maintained close ties with them and for a very long time were anti-Russian.

And another problem you totally ignore - once you're _in_ the war, getting out of it is harder than getting out. The way in for a dime, out for a dollar or two.

The fact is, whatever primary objectives Finland had in the war, it was pretty reluctant to drive the Germans out, only when it was absolutely clear that Germany will be kicked, badly, then they finally began separate peace talks.

In short the question shouldn't be how the fighting is carried out and what the OoBs are, the question should be why there's any fighting going on at all.
Because what is Finland's argument for going out? It's leadership looks at teh German successses and quitely rejoices in the possible territorial aqusitions from Russia, some of the people up there were quite caught up with "Greater Finland" ideas.

Of course, after it sees Germany nuked, well, then...

[Norseman]

There are two objectives:
1. Maintain Finnish independence.
2. Maintain Finnish territorial integrity.

You dropped something. "If Germans are successful, make territorial aquisitions where possible". And that's a rather big piece of it, y'know.

Uhm... where are you getting THAT from? No seriously, there were people in Finland yatting about a Greater Finland, but they were not the majority.

They wouldn't even hesitate, it gives them everything they wanted and fought for in the first place, and it frees them from their co-belligerency with Germany.

The problem is they didn't "want" to get rid of their co-belligerents, they always maintained close ties with them and for a very long time were anti-Russian.

Yes and that is why they enthusiastically helped the Germans lay siege to and capture Leningrad... hang on... well that's why they turned over their Jews! Uhm... dang...

They were co-belligerents, fighting the same enemy, you would expect some ties, but you are still talking about a Western Democracy having to choose between two dictatorships.

And another problem you totally ignore - once you're _in_ the war, getting out of it is harder than getting out. The way in for a dime, out for a dollar or two.

Plenty of states have gotten out of wars by negotiations, defections, etc etc, it can be done.

The fact is, whatever primary objectives Finland had in the war, it was pretty reluctant to drive the Germans out, only when it was absolutely clear that Germany will be kicked, badly, then they finally began separate peace talks.

In short the question shouldn't be how the fighting is carried out and what the OoBs are, the question should be why there's any fighting going on at all.
Because what is Finland's argument for going out? It's leadership looks at teh German successses and quitely rejoices in the possible territorial aqusitions from Russia, some of the people up there were quite caught up with "Greater Finland" ideas.

Of course, after it sees Germany nuked, well, then...

Well the black and blue political parties (fascists) might want a Great Finland and admire Hitler and so forth, but you know... they were in the minority.

However there's a discussion on this subject on soc.history.what-if: link feel free to head over and argue with them there. Be careful though they know their history.

See I didn't post here untill I had checked the facts as they were, but hey if I can't convince you go talk to them, they know a lot more about Finlands politics and war goals than anyone here.

[Setzer]

If there are lots of German troops alongside the Finns, they might stick with the Germans for fear of ending up like Mussolinni's Italy. If it's a "you hold one part of the front, we'll hold the other" then they'll probably withdraw.

Depends on how rational the Finnish government is.

[Norseman]

If there are lots of German troops alongside the Finns, they might stick with the Germans for fear of ending up like Mussolinni's Italy. If it's a "you hold one part of the front, we'll hold the other" then they'll probably withdraw.

Well there's two things... first of all I seriously doubt they'd let in, or need, a bunch of German troops. Note the bit about preserving independence.

Also the vast majority of any German troops would be at the front, if you want to backstab them then that's easy, suddenly their supplies stop and their allies turn against them while the enemy attack at the same time.

Also there was no mention of large numbers of German troops anyway.

Depends on how rational the Finnish government is.

They were a fully functional western democracy, complete with parliamentary politics and genuine free elections. Sure there were a bunch of fruitcakes, but they were not in the majority.

In short Finland was a rational democratic state that got landed in a very shitty position, where there really weren't any good choices. They did the best they could given the information at the time, and the circumstances.

[Norseman]

I'll be perfectly fair here and repeat my former objection: The lead up to The Big One is simply put crazy, there's a whole bunch of stuff that makes very little sense, BUT... that's acceptable since the point isn't so much to create a realistic alternate history, but rather to show what would happen if Germany achieved her maximum war goals. That of course is exceedingly unlikely in itself.

The problem is when you try to defend this as serious alternate history, instead of saying: "Sure it's a handwave, those are the details, the point here is to have a victorious Germany and given how fundamentally unlikely that is there will be some crazy stuff. The technical aspect however is correct, and if there was a victorious Germany then all of their techno-gadgets and Luft '46 Napkinwaffe couldn't save them."

Unless I'm much mistaken that was the point of "The Big One" to demonstrate that even if they got all their wunderwaffe and got to hold all of Europe that just wouldn't be enough.

[Stuart]

[quote="Stas Bush]When I come out in the street or go into a restaurant, the usual adress is simply "citizen". "Grazhdanin [name]", and then whatever you wanted to say. Or, "grazhdanka". Sometimes it's just neutral "man" or "woman". Gospodin is too official for spoken Russian.[/quote]

Thank's Grazhdanin Stas (is that right?) So addressing a barmaid would be Grazhdanka?

Hmm. Whatever. I mean, infantry automatic gun development went different ways in Russia and Germany, in fact Russian infantry was more saturated with automatic guns than German IIRC, but then coincided after the war in the AK-series which shared the same heritage as German autorifles. Seeing a fictional gun developed from the PPSH line is interesting however.

Here's the "PPS-45"



I always liked the 7.62x25mm Tokarev round, seemed to me it had a lot of development potential that went unused. I've got two pistols that shoot it, a ZB-52 and a TT-33 and they're both nice weapons to use. The 9x18mm PM though is a throughly nasty little piece.

Thank you for the information on the Rusisan troops, when the first sections are ready to go, I'd like to run them past you if that's all right? Just to make sure no clangers get dropped.

Railway guns? Like, railway artillery? Well, that's always cool. What do the Soviets use?

I was hoping to set up a battle between two armored trains but it didn't work out. The railway guns would be American 14 inch L50s and Russian 14inch L52 Railway Guns TM-1-14 up against German 11 inch K5s. I've been wanting to use railway guns in a story (as you say, they're cool) for a long time.

[Stuart]

I'd like more information on the Chipanese Naval decline. Was that due to a lack of resources, or a lack of political acumen?

Basically, its a lack of resources. The problem is that Japan is occupying China and it found itself in the time-honored position of the puppy that chases a school bus. If it catches it, what does it do then? China isn'ta hard country to conquer given time and willpower, enough people have done it in the past after all. The problem is to secure China after defeating it and that is something nobody has done. Oh, people stay there but in a generation or two, China absorbs them. So, even though Japan "completes the occupation of China" in 1949-51, holding China is another matter.

It's a question of size and population. To secure it requires a major effort and a huge number of infantry (there is a good reason why the Chinese People's Liberation Army is largely a light infantry force). So, the Japanese had to enlarge their armed forces to achieve that. In doing so they diluted their forces and their army became steadily less and less Japanese and more and more Chinese. Unfortunately, that large occupation army reuqired support and it drained away funds from the Navy. So the Navy gradually decayed. Also, since the army was in China (a win for its politcal faction), teh Army proved to be politically dominant over the Navy and that accelerated the whole process.

It's another case of "be careful what you want, you might get it." The fact is that Japan can't really beat China, it isn;t big enough, rich enough or has enough manpower. All it can do is force opposition underground and stage a holding action. Eventually, the situation falls apart around them.

[Norseman]

Reading my argument regarding Finland I think I was a bit shrill and borderline insulting, I'll still stand by my objections but I should have been a bit less abrasive in expressing them.

That said if you want to argue what I said you should go talk to the people at soc.history.what-if (a newsgroup), most of the arguments I offer come from the discussions there so instead of having me relay them go straight to the source.

There are several Finns there who are quite knowledgeable about history and could give you valuable insights into how the Finns view the war. Also World War Two scenarios are very popular there, and they've rehashed all the arguments over and over, so if you're really interested in testing your timeline this is the place.

[Stuart]

The more I read on the formation of the Caliphate, the more I think it suffers from the hand-waving that the Dominion Of Draka needs to get it into the position it must be in for it to be in the stories. But it is as improbable to occour without intervention or even an eye-batting.. Which is what we're to beleive it did.

One of the precepts, working patterns if you like, of TBO is to give people what they wanted and then see what happens. Make assumptions, posit a situation and see what developes. Nothing in TBO is intended sto suggest that its a perfect world or a good solution. Its a if this then thus.

For example,

Germans want their napkinwaffe. They get them, doesn't do them very much good at all.

The USAF wants a national strategy based around strategic air power. They get it - and the problems with the concept get to be obvious.

The Japanese want to occupy China, well, they get it. And do they regret it.

The Taliban in Afghanistan wanted a state that covered the ground of the old Caliphates et al, ruled by their ideas on what constituted a perfect Islamic state. So, they get it. Now, we can start to look at what that state is likely to be about. Everything in "The Caliphate" is taken straight from Taliban Afghanistan (the treatment of women for example, the plans to create an illiterate, innumerate generation of women by denying them even the most basic of education, the fascination with biological weapons), all are taken from what the Taliban actually did or had plans to do. So, we give them teh state they want and see what happens.

You are right, there is a lot of handwavium in how the situation came to be. There has to be, the course history took is by definition the most likely one so, anything we do to change it almost by defunition has to be less likely that historically. There's another constraint as well, it has to make a good story. If we take the UK in 1940 for example, that's a key factor, probably the most important point of WW2 as we know it. If we're going to knock the UK out of the war, somehow, there are only two real possibilities,. ONe is that Sealion is attempted and succeeds. That really does push the bounds of kentucky windage too far. There was no way on earth Sealion would - or could - succeed. The other is that the appeasement party represented by Lord Halifax and RAB Butler actually get their way and bring about a ceasefire/armistice in 1940. that is plausible at least; Halifax and Butler really did send a message to the Germans via the Swedish Embassy in 1940. It may not be the most likely thing on the earth but it is more plausible than Sealion succeeding. Once the Germans had offered terms, the route by which Halifax would have displaced Churchill was quite well-established. Hamifax wasn't alone, he had a lot of support when he ran against Churchill for the leadership of the conservative party in May and he could probably still count on that in September. Probably it had gone by October but that's another issue.

As to The Caliphate surviving, (remember, its internal systems and workings haven't been described yet - its a deliberate mystery with a vast mass of contradictions and anomalies. What's been seen to date is the outside perceptions of what it is), this isn't so hard. Relatively simple, low-level societies are extremely resilient and hard to grind down (another reason why Japan has such a job defeating China). The more complex a society, the easier it is to destroy it. So, The Caliphate is actually quite resilient - or, more to the point, the tools needed to destroy it either aren't available or aren't usable.

[Stuart]

Moreover, the Caliphate convinently lasts almost 100 years, survives at least one nuking by SAC, and still manages to launch the TBO Dark Ages-which cause more handwavium

As I said, simple societies are quite resilient. Put simply, a village can survive on its own resources, a city cannot. Farms survive, factories don't. There's a long article I could write here about A-country and B-country, what survives a nuclear wear and what doesn't. In a nutshell, cities die, the countryside lives. The Caliphate is nearly all countryside.

in so much as much of Blue State America (i.e. those evil liberal large cities) get wiped out in the Dark Ages, by either SAC trying to sterilize large areas, or by the various plagues.

Actually, that's not the case. The worst hit areas are the cities around the big ports and along the southern border plus isolated sections around the major transportation nexuses. The key factors were density of population (thus ability of disease to spread), climate (the colder the better), access to transport (thus entry points for disease carriers) and access to medical facilities. Big cities do get hit hard but that's only to be expected, they're almost perfect incubators for disease pandemics (look at The Great Influenza of 1919 for example). It doens't matter whether they're Republican or Democrat cities, they get hammered. Cities are very, very vulnerable things, we learned that early on when planning nuclear wars really got started on a profesisonal basis.

[Stuart]

Well they deploy superduper virus-hybrids and "blackpox"; basically the worst possible virulent bioweapons. Their ideology is so backward they are literally losing modern technological base, but they can do sophisticated genetics and biological research, apparently.

Biowarfare isn't hard, its terrifyingly easy. One can cultivate a lethal strain of anthrax with a spade and an average domestic kitchen. If one is ruthless enough (ie don't care whether one's research teams live or die) a good bioplague can be made very easily.

Biowarfare terrifies me. It's uncontrollable and anybody with the will can develop it. Nuclear weapons I can take with a level of equanimity, I've been working with them for decades. I know what they can do and what they can't. Biologicals, we've yet to find the limit at which we can turn around and say, 'that they can't do'. I honestly believe that a biological war is likely to be an extinction event for humanity (on any given planet at least) - and I can't see us avoiding one forever.

[Stuart]

And another problem you totally ignore - once you're _in_ the war, getting out of it is harder than getting out. The way in for a dime, out for a dollar or two.

That's exactly the point. The Continuation War started in 1941, at which point the war in the east was going according (more or less) to OTL. So the Continuation War started as per schedule. The break with OTL comes in early 1942 when the German Army pushes on the Northern front rather than the southern flank (which, according to 'The Road To Stalingrad' was what the German command wanted - it was Hitler who pushed for the south). So all the mindless prattling about aims etc is as irrelevent as the rest of Norseman's whining. The Continuation War started, we've got OTL to testify for that and we'restuck with it.

As you so rightly say, getting in is easy, getting out is hard. Especially when facing a very annoyed Russian Army

In fact, my situation come 1945 is that the Finns have decided getting back the Winter War losses (they're OTL apology for a war aim) isn't worth the agony and grief that it causes and they're trying to back-pedal a bit. Let things go quiet and have a "live-and-let-live agreement" Hence the deployment of the Canadians along that particular border, after The Winter War, the Finns are unholy scared of what the Russians will do to them eventually and the less-threatening (in a psychological sense) Canadians are more likely to keep the Finns quiet. That's critical because the Finnish border is a very long one and the number of troops that can be supported in the Kola Peninsula after its been cut off is limited.

Certainly, in any rational world, the Finns wouldn't have got involved in the Continuation War, but they did. That's it, we're stuck with it.

Of course the Germans don't like that at all.

[K. A. Pital]

Thank's Grazhdanin Stas (is that right?) So addressing a barmaid would be Grazhdanka?

Right. If it's a young nice girl, older soviet citizens may say "grazhdanochka" (a softer version of "grazhdanka")

Thank you for the information on the Rusisan troops, when the first sections are ready to go, I'd like to run them past you if that's all right? Just to make sure no clangers get dropped.

Net problem

I was hoping to set up a battle between two armored trains but it didn't work out. The railway guns would be American 14 inch L50s and Russian 14inch L52 Railway Guns TM-1-14 up against German 11 inch K5s. I've been wanting to use railway guns in a story (as you say, they're cool) for a long time.

Well, that's good. You've got a railway map of the Kolsky? I'm just wondering about where those would be stationed. Or, it would be in vinicity of Leningrad where the artillery shootouts happen?

[Junghalli]

Aaaaah but here you see you run into a problem: by analysing it thus, and figuring out how Allah seems to make the universe work, aren't you trying to understand the mind of Allah? HARAM!

Allah is so wholly transcendent that we cannot comprehend him at all, he is not bound by logic, or his own word, or morality of any sort!

I thought of that too, but the way I look at it you can easily argue around this. The whole basis of the argument in the first place is that while the laws of physics may not be actual laws as rules of thumb they seem to work for us mortals, so we might as well use them. You're not fundamentally trying to understand how the universe works, you're just writing down some rules of thumb that allow you to make better tools (at the pleasure of Allah, who could change or violate them at will, of course). After all, you don't have to really understand a law of physics to use it: a Midaeval swordsmith knew nothing about the modern science of mettallurgy but he knew some combinations of metals and some procedures produced a better sword than others so he used them. We're doing the same thing, just more systematically. Indeed the fact that Allah is not bound by logic actually helps here: how can we be trying to understand him when he's not constrained by these rules we're talking about?

Mind you I'm not saying the argument is perfect; the religious doctrine sort of has to meet it maybe not halfway but a quarter of the way, hence why I don't think it would work very well with the reactionary types that run the Caliphate. Also treating the laws of physics as nothing more than an engineer's rules of thumb might slow down scientific advance as investigation into anything that didn't have an immediate practical application would likely be generally thought wasteful and possibly even condemned as blasphemous. It would probably also encourage a lackadaisal attitude toward evidence contradicting well established theories, because the theories are only there because they work most of the time anyway. A civilization with such an attitude toward science would probably be fairly good at improving on existing technologies but would rarely create anything truly original, sort of like Dark Hellion said.

I don't think it would work for the Caliphate, but for a different bunch of religious nuts who somehow have managed to develop high technology it might be an interesting idea.

[Stuart]

Mind you I'm not saying the argument is perfect; the religious doctrine sort of has to meet it maybe not halfway but a quarter of the way, hence why I don't think it would work very well with the reactionary types that run the Caliphate. Also treating the laws of physics as nothing more than an engineer's rules of thumb might slow down scientific advance as investigation into anything that didn't have an immediate practical application would likely be generally thought wasteful and possibly even condemned as blasphemous. It would probably also encourage a lackadaisal attitude toward evidence contradicting well established theories, because the theories are only there because they work most of the time anyway. A civilization with such an attitude toward science would probably be fairly good at improving on existing technologies but would rarely create anything truly original, sort of like Dark Hellion said.

I'm reluctant to give too much on this since it would tend to be spoilers on what is supposed to be a slowly-emerging mystery. But, everything is not quite as it seems. There are hints already in RotV, that there are radical differences in the way the various bits of the Caliphate does things that the whole entity is far less solid and unitary than it appears. Also, in High Frontier, note the urbanity and courtesy with which one of the characters acts. There's a lot of things that don't fit the pattern. The reasons for some of them are obvious (for example the people doing the burnings in Yaffo were German Einsatzgruppen doing things according to their lights and culture. The reasons for others have yet to become clear.

What's been seen so far are bits and pieces, pencil strokes that are far from making up the whole picture - and they are pencil strokes that are seen from the wrong side of the mirror if you like. That gets revealed as the stories go on. A big chunk of the picture gets revealed in the next few parts of RotV.

I don't think it would work for the Caliphate, but for a different bunch of religious nuts who somehow have managed to develop high technology it might be an interesting idea.

Do remember that nuts grow on trees, trees require fertilizer